Case law

Hathcock v. Cohen

547 F. Supp. 2d 1271 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Feb 29, 2008

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … right to qualified immunity.

Osborne v. Rose

954 F. Supp. 1142 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Jan 24, 1997

Public officials are entitled to immunity from civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Qualified immunity requires a three-pronged analysis: (1) an identification of the right violated; (2) whether the right in ques *1147 tion was established so clearly as to alert a reasonable officer of its constitutional

Coyne v. United States

270 F. Supp. 2d 104 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 30, 2003

Qualified Immunity Defense The qualified immunity defense shields government officials “from liability for civil damages if their actions did not violate ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … Thus, the qualified immunity defense is unavailing. I therefore conclude that SA Cronin’s motion to dismiss must be denied with respect to the Count III Bivens claims. E.

Leland v. Moran

100 F. Supp. 2d 140 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jun 22, 2000

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity “shields government officials performing discretionary functions from being held liable for civil damages arising from their actions which do ‘not violate clearly established … Consequently, the individual Ellenville defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. E.

Bowser v. Smith

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 4, 2019

Smith’s conduct violated “clearly established law,” and thus Sgt. Smith had a right to qualified immunity. See Bowser II, 314 F. Supp. 3d at 33–35. The Court allowed Mr. … Bowser still has not pointed to “clearly established law” that Sgt. Smith violated. Mr.

Donaldson v. Hovanec

473 F. Supp. 602 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 27, 1979

“As Navarette makes clear, the immunity defense should not be rejected if at the time that the act was committed there was no clearly established constitutional right and there was no malicious intention to deprive the plaintiff … Therefore, it is clear that in 1975, decedent Donaldson did not have a clearly established constitutional right to be subject to the provisions of Rule 51 A(l)(c), involving a custodial arrest, only when the procedures established

Bibbo v. Mulhern

621 F. Supp. 1018 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 8, 1985

The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the district court’s statement was in error, and holding that an officer’s “qualified immunity is pierced only if there clearly is no probable cause at the time the arrest was made … Borrowing from the language of Floyd , Officer Mulhern asserts that “the defense of qualified immunity is pierced only if there clearly were no grounds to act as the defendant did.”

Wahi v. Charleston Area Medical Center

453 F. Supp. 2d 942 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Sep 29, 2006

This presumption of immunity established by the HCQIA creates a unique summary judgment standard. See Gabaldoni v. … Reasonableness standards have been consistently upheld in the context of qualified immunity. Freilich, 313 F.3d at 213 .

Robertson v. Alabama Department of Economic & Community Affairs

902 F. Supp. 1473 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jul 31, 1995

Therefore the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity is granted. C. … Again, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment is predicated on the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Patterson v. Randazzo

160 F. Supp. 3d 849 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 4, 2016

Qualified Immunity Even if O’Hal, Randazzo, and Flynt acted unreasonably, they may nevertheless be entitled to summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity. … Officers are entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Pearson v.

Lipman v. Budish

383 F. Supp. 3d 764 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 23, 2019

, was not clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct. … The case is clearly distinguishable. In Stemler , the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff's substantive due process claim because they owed a duty to protect her as she was in their custody.

Donnell G. Haddock v. Luna

District Court, C.D. California · May 9, 2024

Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1220 (9th Cir. 2007) (finding, for purposes of qualified immunity analysis in 5150 claim, the “constitutional right to be free from [mental health] detention without probable cause was clearly … established prior to 2002,” citing Maag).

Jingping Xu v. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

854 F. Supp. 2d 430 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Feb 22, 2012

If the alleged conduct amounts to a constitutional violation, the court proceeds to the “ ‘qualified immunity question’ of whether the right was clearly established at the time of the conduct.” Id. … County of Comal, 400 F.3d 284, 289 (5th Cir.2005) (“Even if the government official’s conduct violates a clearly established right, the official is nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct was objectively

Lee v. City of Richmond

100 F. Supp. 3d 514 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Mar 18, 2015

Whether Summary Judgment Is Appropriate: Qualified Immunity The foregoing analysis also would yield summary judgment on the plea of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects police officers in the performance of their discretionary functions from civil liability under § 1983 so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable

SMITH v. CITY OF GREENSBORO

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 25, 2020

However, as the above discussion of qualified immunity makes clear, Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that the Officers violated Smith’s clearly established right to be free from excessive force. … Clearly Established Right The Paramedics contend that, even if their failure to provide timely aid violated Smith’s rights, they are still entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly

Burch v. NC Department of Public Safety

158 F. Supp. 3d 449 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jan 19, 2016

Plaintiff also argues against application of sovereign immunity, public official immunity, and qualified immunity. … Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity from civil damages so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Luder v. Endicott

86 F. Supp. 2d 854 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Feb 14, 2000

Ex parte Young Exception Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 , 28 S.Ct. 441 , 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908), established an additional exception to sovereign immunity that allows a court to order prospective injunctive relief to restrain … See Pennhurst, 465 U.S. at 98 , 104 S.Ct. 900 (principle of sovereign immunity is constitutional limitation of federal judicial power established in Art. III). C.

Baker v. City of Detroit

458 F. Supp. 379 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jul 31, 1978

Yet it is clear that in a § 1983 action for money damages, public officials have qualified immunity if they acted in good faith. Procunier v. … Nor can the city officials be said to have infringed a “clearly established” constitutional right, the existence of the right plaintiffs allege is the crux of this litigation!

Gonzales v. Galveston Independent School District

865 F. Supp. 1241 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Oct 4, 1994

Qualified Immunity The individual Defendants in this case argue that they should not be subjected to suit in their individual capacities because they are protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … from suit in their individual capacities under the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Crue v. Aiken

204 F. Supp. 2d 1130 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · May 24, 2002

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY In ruling on a Motion to Dismiss earlier in this case, the University raised the issue of qualified immunity. … clearly established at the time in question.”