Case law

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

Krueger v. Miller

489 F. Supp. 321 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Jan 27, 1978

immunity doctrine affecting persons is more strongly established than that of judicial immunity. * * *” Kurz v. … Miller acted with such disregard of Miss Krueger’s clearly established constitutional immunity against unreasonable seizure that his action herein cannot be characterized reasonably as being in good faith.

Brown v. District of Columbia

249 F. Supp. 3d 439 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 19, 2017

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from ‘liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … if so, whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”

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

Aristocrat Technologies, Inc. v. Light & Wonder, Inc.

District Court, D. Nevada · Jun 24, 2024

These examples go beyond the mere identification of a 24 system that may qualify for protection. … See InteliClear, 978 F.3d at 658 (explaining that a 25 plaintiff must “clearly refer to tangible trade secret material instead of referring to a system 1 which potentially qualifies for trade secret protection”).

Baser v. Tri-State Fire Protection District

69 F. Supp. 3d 845 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 25, 2014

of qualified immunity. … But he has not shown that the right was clearly established.

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!

Younger v. Chernovetz

792 F. Supp. 173 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Jun 10, 1992

violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which *177 a reasonable person would have known. … Defendants seeking the benefit of qualified immunity must make such a specific showing. There is no basis to grant defendants qualified immunity. V.

Bostic v. United States Capitol Police

644 F. Supp. 2d 106 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 6, 2009

To the extent that Bostic alleges a Bivens claim against Banks in his individual capacity, Banks is entitled to qualified immunity. … “[Gjovernment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Whitfield v. Board of County Commissioners

837 F. Supp. 338 · District Court, D. Colorado · Nov 9, 1993

Qualified Immunity. … The individual defendants contend that they are protected by qualified immunity, which shields government officials from civil liability provided their alleged conduct does not violate clearly established law of which a reasonable

Frank v. Relin

851 F. Supp. 87 · District Court, W.D. New York · May 2, 1994

Qualified Immunity “The affirmative defense of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … “The threshold issue is whether the relevant law was clearly established at the time the alleged violation occurred.” Kaminsky v.

Blanchette v. Kupchunos

116 F. Supp. 2d 325 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Oct 16, 2000

Qualified Immunity Defendant raises the defense of qualified immunity as to plaintiffs § 1983 claim. … Thus, it is unnecessary to decide the question of qualified immunity.

Via v. Taylor

224 F. Supp. 2d 753 · District Court, D. Delaware · Sep 11, 2002

Whether Defendants Are Entitled To Qualified Immunity Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions are immune from liability for civil damages in their individual capacities … In interpreting the Anderson approach to the “clearly established right” prong of the qualified immunity test, the Third Circuit has rejected a strict reading of Anderson which would require near fac *772 tual identity between

Abreu v. NEW MEXICO CHILDREN, YOUTH & FAMILIES

797 F. Supp. 2d 1199 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Jun 16, 2011

The Court will grant summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' procedural due-process claims against Defendant Dorian Dodson and Defendant Sandra Perez on the grounds of qualified immunity, because there is no clearly established … Once the plaintiff has established the inference that the defendant's conduct violated *1240 a clearly established constitutional right, a qualified immunity defense generally fails. See Cannon v.

Bryan v. Bernier

21 V.I. 333 · District Court, Virgin Islands · Jan 3, 1985

Bernier, Jr. is entitled to invoke the qualified immunity defense. … In order to establish the defense of qualified immunity on a motion for summary judgment “[t]he defendant must first assert the affirmative defense of qualified immunity and then show that his conduct was taken within the

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.

Rose v. Saginaw County

353 F. Supp. 2d 900 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jan 25, 2005

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that protects government actors performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages when their conduct does “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … In this case, the right to be free from unreasonable seizures is clearly established. But the qualified immunity defense requires the Court to look beyond the right in the abstract.

Alexander v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

227 F. Supp. 2d 657 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Sep 6, 2002

does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … The plaintiff has the burden of establishing that his rights were violated and that the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. Wegener v. Covington, 933 F.2d 390, 392 (6th Cir.1991).

De Contreras v. City of Rialto

894 F. Supp. 2d 1238 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 25, 2012

immunity (i.e., whether the plaintiffs allegedly violated right was clearly established at the time of the injury). … Hence, the Court finds that Lee is entitled to qualified immunity because the law regarding a second application of a taser, after a first application that was objectively reasonable, was not then clearly established.

Doe Ex Rel. Doe v. Warren Consolidated Schools

307 F. Supp. 2d 860 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Feb 13, 2003

(i) Qualified Immunity Standard Government officials are afforded qualified immunity for their discretionary functions, as long as the conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … “If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no [need] for further inquirfy] concerning qualified immunity.” Saucier, 121 S.Ct. at 2156.