Case law

Petrichko v. Kurtz

117 F. Supp. 2d 467 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 4, 2000

Qualified Immunity Defendants’ contention that they are entitled to qualified immunity is not supported by the law or the facts. … Therefore, I conclude that defendants are not entitled to immunity from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity. 5.

Adams v. Wainwright

512 F. Supp. 948 · District Court, N.D. Florida · Apr 15, 1981

In addition, at the time of these officials’ actions, there were no “clearly established judicial decisions” making their actions unconstitutional. Dilmore v. Stubbs, supra at 969, citing Bogard v. … These officials did not act with such disregard of the plaintiff’s clearly *955 established constitutional rights that their actions cannot reasonably be characterized as being in good faith. Procunier v.

Tatsch-Corbin v. Feathers

561 F. Supp. 2d 538 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 30, 2008

Feathers is clearly not immune to suit under § 1983, as it is a federal law, from which one cannot be immunized by state law. Therefore, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss on the basis of immunity is denied. … Feathers is not immune based on Pennsylvania law and therefore the Motion to Dismiss based on immunity will be denied.

Rosales v. City of Phoenix

202 F. Supp. 2d 1055 · District Court, D. Arizona · Sep 9, 1999

Qualified Immunity “Officers are entitled to qualified immunity even if they acted unconstitutionally, as long as a reasonable officer could have believed the conduct lawful.” Alexander v. … immunity.

Fewless Ex Rel. Fewless v. Board of Education of Wayland Union Schools

208 F. Supp. 2d 806 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Jul 11, 2002

An official protected by qualified immunity may be held personally liable for an allegedly unlawful official action if the action assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time of the action … Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 609 , 119 S.Ct. 1692 , 143 L.Ed.2d 818 (1999) (stating that “clearly established,” for purposes of qualified immunity, means that the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable

Rudolph v. Adamar of New Jersey, Inc.

153 F. Supp. 2d 528 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 31, 2001

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (qualified immunity), Wood v. … The question of whether the Defendants are entitled to assert qualified immunity is not presented and need not be addressed by this Court.

Broulette v. Starns

161 F. Supp. 2d 1021 · District Court, D. Arizona · Aug 27, 2001

Qualified immunity protects government officers from liability unless the law is clearly established and the party asserting qualified immunity objectively could not have believed that his conduct was lawful. … DISCUSSION A defendant in a § 1983 action has qualified immunity from suit and from liability if, applying an objective standard, a reasonable officer could believe that his conduct was lawful in the light of clearly established

Reeves v. City of West Liberty, Kentucky

219 F. Supp. 3d 600 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Nov 29, 2016

The officer moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity is a doctrine that “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

Stepney v. City of Columbia

695 F. Supp. 2d 412 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Mar 9, 2010

Therefore, Stepney has satisfied the first prong of the test for qualified immunity. However, Huber contends that his alleged conduct was objectively reasonable under clearly established law. Id. ¶ 8. … Because Stepney has presented some evidence that Huber’s conduct violated constitutional rights and that his conduct was objectively unreasonable under clearly established law, Huber is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Gomez v. Pellicone

986 F. Supp. 220 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 20, 1997

INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The doctrine of qualified immunity entitles public officers to be shielded from liability for damages unless their conduct violates clearly established constitutional rights of whieh … immunity.

Mauro v. Cuomo

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 8, 2023

Plaintiffs respond that the qualified immunity defense does not apply here because the individual Defendants knowingly violated clearly established law. ECF No. 58 at 27–32. … Nevertheless, “even where the law is clearly established and the scope of an official’s permissible conduct is clearly defined, the qualified immunity defense also protects an official if it was objectively reasonable for

Wolk v. Seminole County, Fla.

510 F. Supp. 2d 786 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 16, 2007

Defendants assert the defense of qualified immunity. 2 The purpose of qualified immunity is to “allow government officials to carry out their discretionary duties without the fear of personal liability or harassing litigation … Thus, ... material issues of disputed fact are not a factor in the court's analysis of qualified immunity and cannot foreclose the grant or denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity. ... Robinson v.

Keele v. Glynn County

938 F. Supp. 2d 1270 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · Mar 29, 2013

Qualified Immunity Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity. Specifically, Defendants assert that their actions were discretionary and did not violate clearly established law. Dkt. … The Eleventh Circuit established a burden-shifting framework within which to analyze a defendant’s qualified immunity defense.

Gross v. Pomerleau

465 F. Supp. 1167 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 22, 1979

A remaining issue, then, is whether the expansion of liability under Monell is in any way qualified by the presence of municipal immunity. … motivation or with such disregard of the student’s clearly established constitutional rights that his action cannot reasonably be characterized as being in good faith. 420 U.S. at 322 , 95 S.Ct. at 1001.

Anderson v. Cornejo

284 F. Supp. 2d 1008 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 4, 2003

It was held that “violation of an administrative rule or regulation does not preclude applying qualified immunity where the pertinent constitutional law is not clearly established.” Id. at 265-66 (citing Davis v. … Plaintiffs presently argue that Anderson IV’s qualified immunity holding as to when the some level of suspicion standard for standard patdown searches was clearly established, see 199 F.R.D. at 256-57 , should be reconsidered

Golt v. City of Signal Hill

132 F. Supp. 2d 1271 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 7, 2001

Summary Adjudication is also appropriate because Defendants possess qualified immunity. … The Ninth Circuit has capsulized the test for qualified immunity from liability by public officials in the following manner: “1) Was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established?

Hurley v. Ward

451 F. Supp. 930 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 9, 1978

Strickland rule, the immunity defense would be unavailing to [defendants] if the constitutional right allegedly infringed by them was clearly established at the time of their challenged conduct, if they knew or should have … Thus, it simply cannot be said that at the time the events in question occurred plaintiff’s constitutional right to be free from these searches was “clearly established,” Procunier v.

Ludwig v. Learjet, Inc.

830 F. Supp. 995 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Aug 6, 1993

The immunity given an employee of a governmental agency is a qualified grant of immunity which is an affirmative defense. 8 Hoffman v. … Thus, the criteria for granting qualified governmental immunity has not been met. Therefore, defendant Fair is not shielded from plaintiffs tort claims based on the doctrine of qualified governmental immunity. B.

Puskas v. Delaware County, Ohio

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 24, 2022

An official is entitled to the defense of qualified immunity so long as he has not violated a “clearly established statutory or constitutional right[] of which a reasonable person would have known.” Mullenix v. … Puskas’s death and, therefore, they are not entitled to qualified immunity. (See, Resp., PageID 1069, 1075.)

Brown v. Handy

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 30, 2010

Qualified immunity “shields government officials from liability for civil damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … DSO Short’s Conduct Was Not Objectively Reasonable in Light of Clearly Established Law The second step of the qualified immunity inquiry requires courts to examine whether the defendant