Case law

Matheny v. Boatright

970 F. Supp. 1039 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · Mar 25, 1997

J. at 7-8 (“The only new contention raised by the individual defen *1043 dants in their Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment is that there is some entitlement to qualified immunity from suit____”) (emphasis added).) … Second, a grant of qualified immunity based upon the absence of a “clearly established” right is not the equivalent of a holding that no duty is owed to an arrestee’s children or passengers.

Doe v. Green

593 F. Supp. 2d 523 · District Court, W.D. New York · Jan 6, 2009

Such acts are not protected by absolute immunity, but by qualified, good-faith immunity. See, e.g., Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 277-78 , 113 S.Ct. 2606 , 125 L.Ed.2d 209 (1993); Milstein v. … It is not at all established (much less was it clearly established at the time of the relevant events) that a DA’s public statements of the type alleged here might violate the constitutional rights of someone in plaintiffs

German v. Killeen

495 F. Supp. 822 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Aug 25, 1980

The mere fact that defendants assert such immunity, however, does not per se establish that they are entitled to it. … Defendants then, possess, at most, only qualified immunity. The Supreme Court in Gomez v.

Meeks v. City of Detroit

220 F. Supp. 3d 832 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Nov 16, 2016

Defendants argue that Defendant Officers are entitled to qualified immunity and that Plaintiff cannot identify a city policy or an obvious training deficiency. (Dkt. # 27.) A. … Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials “from liability for civil damages if their actions did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Velez Ex Rel. Velez v. Reynolds

325 F. Supp. 2d 293 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 10, 2004

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions are generally shielded from liability for civil damages “if either (1) their conduct did not violate clearly established rights … Summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds is thus appropriate if a right is not clearly established or if no reasonable jury, looking at the evidence in the light most favorable to, and drawing all inferences most favorable

Hebshi v. United States

12 F. Supp. 3d 1036 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 31, 2014

“Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established … Plaintiff Has Alleged the Violation of a Clearly Established Constitutional Right.

Munchinski v. Solomon

258 F. Supp. 3d 534 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 27, 2017

to turn over this evidence was not clearly established constitutional law until 1995. … Because such a right was not clearly established in this Circuit at the time of Gibson’s conviction, Troopers Pennypacker and Reilly are entitled to qualified immunity with regard to their failure to inform the prosecutor

Cole v. Snow

586 F. Supp. 655 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 9, 1984

were entitled to a “qualified immunity” defense. … Assuming that the issue of subjective knowledge is still a part of the qualified immunity defense, this court finds that the evidence did not establish that Snow knew that his actions violated clearly established constitutional

Holloman v. Clarke

236 F. Supp. 3d 493 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 23, 2017

Prosecutorial Immunity Prosecutors are afforded two kinds of immunity in suits brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1983 : absolute and qualified. Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, 118 , 118 S.Ct. 502 , 139 L.Ed.2d 471 (1997). … The burden is on the defendant to establish which, if either, immunity applies. Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 269 , 113 S.Ct. 2606 , 125 L.Ed.2d 209 (1993).

Wilson v. Harper

949 F. Supp. 714 · District Court, S.D. Iowa · Nov 14, 1996

Prison officials are entitled to qualified immunity “ ‘if, at the time of the challenged acts, it was not clearly established that those actions would violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person would have … “The qualified immunity inquiry involves a two-step process.” Munz v. Michael, 28 F.3d 795, 799 (8th Cir.1994). First, the plaintiff must allege violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Portnoy v. City of Davis

663 F. Supp. 2d 949 · District Court, E.D. California · Oct 9, 2009

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Therefore, qualified immunity is not available to award judgment in favor of defendants. *961 D.

Tri-State Rubbish, Inc. v. Waste Management, Inc.

803 F. Supp. 451 · District Court, D. Maine · Sep 23, 1992

It has been established that the Waste Management Defendants actions are in conformity with a clearly articulated state, policy. … As described above in the text, MMWAC’s alleged acts are properly delegated and undertaken pursuant to a clearly articulated state policy, so it need not show active state supervision in order to qualify for state action

Young v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 20, 2018

“Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. … As to the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry, the Court must determine whether the Fourth Amendment rights that defendant Powell violated were clearly established at the time of the shooting.

Ballard v. Johns

17 F. Supp. 3d 511 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 27, 2014

Qualified Immunity 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 … issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.”

Hutchison v. Cutliffe

344 F. Supp. 2d 219 · District Court, D. Maine · Nov 10, 2004

In this case, the jury’s factual determination of reasonableness is further complicated by the court’s own analysis of qualified immunity that will involve a similar, but different test of reasonableness applied to the same … Once those facts are established, if the court determines Cut-liffe is not entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law, then the jury’s factual assessment of the reasonableness of the degree of force becomes the ultimate

B.L. v. Schuhmann

380 F. Supp. 3d 614 · District Court, W.D. Kentucky · May 2, 2019

Qualified Immunity Defendants Flaherty, Schmidt, Paris, Scott, and Gelhausen argue Plaintiffs' claims against them should be dismissed based on the doctrine of qualified immunity. … When an official violates clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which the official should have known, qualified immunity will not protect them from *656 suit.

Landis v. Galarneau

687 F. Supp. 2d 672 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Dec 14, 2009

The defendant officers moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity in June 2007. The Court denied qualified immunity to the individual officers on September 28, 2007, 515 F.Supp.2d 809 (E.D.Mich.2007). … immunity.

Griffith v. Coburn

408 F. Supp. 2d 491 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Nov 15, 2005

Aey, 319 F.3d 843, 848 (6th Cir.2003)). 1 “Qualified immunity must be granted if the plaintiff cannot establish each of these elements.” Sample, 409 F.3d at 696 (citing Radvansky v. … established or that the officer’s actions were objectively unreasonable in light of the clearly established constitutional rights.

Robinson v. Metts

86 F. Supp. 2d 557 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Mar 17, 1997

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY In addition to finding plaintiffs claims to be without merit, the court also *565 finds that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as to plaintiffs first, second, and fourth causes of action because … It is well established that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Hicks Ex Rel. Hicks v. HALIFAX COUNTY BD. EDUC.

93 F. Supp. 2d 649 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Dec 15, 1999

“To be clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity, ‘the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.’ ” Takoma Park, 134 … Lynch, 846 F.2d 960, 962 (4th Cir.1988) (qualified immunity does not preclude claim for injunctive relief).