Case law

Medina-Claudio v. Pereira

443 F. Supp. 2d 208 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jul 19, 2006

Pereira insists, however, that he was not personally involved in the acts described in the complaint, and that he must be afforded qualified immunity since there are no allegations against him in the complaint. … Accordingly, Pereira’s request for dismissal for his lack of personal involvement and for being qualified immune is DENIED.

Scott v. Sills

134 F. Supp. 2d 599 · District Court, D. Delaware · Feb 27, 2001

Whether the Defendants are Entitled to Qualified Immunity? The defendants also maintain that they are entitled to qualified immunity and, therefore, summary judgment in this case. In Harlots v. … Thus, the court cannot rule as a matter of law that the defendants’ conduct was reasonable in light of clearly established law. V.

Harrell v. City of Jacksonville

976 F. Supp. 777 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Sep 5, 1997

Qualified immunity shields government officials who are performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken, id., at 818 [ 102 S.Ct., at 2738 ].”

Dupree v. City of Chattanooga, Tennessee

362 F. Supp. 1136 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Jul 13, 1973

Knox, supra: “It is our opinion that the defendants in this case were not clothed with complete immunity but enjoyed instead a qualified privilege. … Accordingly, upon this record the Court cannot say that the defenses of good faith action and qualified immunity are established. Curry v. Gillette, supra. As stated in Norwalk Core v.

Tobias v. Pletzke

933 F. Supp. 2d 892 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 20, 2013

Second, the court must consider “whether the right was clearly established.” … But again, this immunity is not absolute. It is qualified.

Leon v. Johnson

96 F. Supp. 2d 244 · District Court, W.D. New York · May 22, 2000

Qualified immunity shields public officials “from civil damages liability insofar as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,’ Harlow … Therefore, “[t]o defeat an official’s claim of qualified immunity, the individual’s right must have been clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” LaBounty v. Coughlin, 1996 WL 711497 *1 (S.D.N.Y.1996).

Jiggetts v. Cipullo

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 23, 2019

Thus, a defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity if (1) the defendant’s conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) the right was “clearly established at the time.” Id. at 231. … by qualified immunity.

Fillmore v. Eichkorn

891 F. Supp. 1482 · District Court, D. Kansas · May 18, 1995

Wyatt, 18 F.3d 869, 871 (10th Cir. 1994): As our jurisprudence makes clear, when a defendant raises qualified immunity, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish the defendant violated clearly established constitutional … be entitled to qualified immunity from any damages award.

Jeffries v. Harleston

828 F. Supp. 1066 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 4, 1993

Finally, we conclude that the defense of qualified immunity is not available to the defendants, in that they violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known, and … The Court also denied the Piesco defendants qualified immunity. See id. at 1160-61 . The Court emphasized that it was clearly established at the time the Piesco defendants retaliated against Dr.

Taliaferro v. DiFrancesco

871 F. Supp. 330 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Dec 22, 1994

defendants were entitled to the defense of qualified immunity. … The defendants have moved for summary judgment on the alternative grounds of qualified immunity. Under Shields , they would be entitled to such a defense.

Langford v. GRADY COUNTY DETENTION CENTER

670 F. Supp. 2d 1213 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Nov 17, 2009

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 person would have known … In raising the qualified immunity defense, Defendants do not contend qualified immunity should be granted on grounds of lack of clearly established federal law.

Russell v. Wright

916 F. Supp. 2d 629 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Jan 4, 2013

Alternatively, he argues that, if the court were to find that he used excessive force, he is entitled to qualified immunity because the law on the matter was not clearly established at the time of the incident. … In light of the foregoing, Deputy Wright did not violate clearly established law, and he is entitled to qualified immunity. Accordingly, his motion for summary judgment will be granted as to Count I. C.

Terry v. Boy Scouts of America, Inc.

471 F. Supp. 28 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Feb 21, 1978

The threshold question for determination is whether or not the Boy Scouts of America qualifies as a charitable institution. … Even the dissenting opinion in Brown which advocated abrogation of charitable immunity for all types of tortious conduct, apparently including simple negligence, clearly indicated, in at least four places, that this abrogation

Hartry v. County of Suffolk

755 F. Supp. 2d 422 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 15, 2010

“Under federal law, a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity where (1) his conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known, or (2) it … Therefore the Court must deny the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. E.

Ruggiero v. Prack

168 F. Supp. 3d 495 · District Court, W.D. New York · Mar 11, 2016

Even in cases involving violations of a clearly established right, “officials may still successfully assert qualified immunity if they can show that their actions were ’objectively reasonable.’” Williams v. … Likewise, defendant Donahue is not entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiffs due process claim because plaintiffs right to an impartial hearing officer was also clearly established at the time of the November 2010 hearing

Weston J. Stow v. P Robert P. McGrath, et al.

2021 DNH 062 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Mar 29, 2021

Additionally, they assert that, even if a genuine dispute existed as to retaliation, they are protected by qualified immunity because Stow’s transfer did not violate any clearly established right. … from liability by qualified immunity.

Laughter v. Kay

986 F. Supp. 1362 · District Court, D. Utah · Oct 29, 1997

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity so long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … . 2 Defendants argue that because no clearly established law required that all information supporting probable cause be contained within the four corners of the affidavit, they are entitled to qualified immunity.

KORTLANDER v. Cornell

816 F. Supp. 2d 982 · District Court, D. Montana · Sep 12, 2011

Defendants Have Qualified Immunity Because Plaintiffs Do Not Allege Plausible Violations of Constitutional Rights The doctrine of qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff … Since the driving force behind the doctrine is to ensure that insubstantial claims against public officials are resolved prior to discovery, qualified immunity is more than a mere defense to liability — it provides immunity

Coleman v. McHenry

735 F. Supp. 190 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Apr 24, 1990

Qualified Immunity Defendant further maintains that she is protected from § 1983 liability because as a state official she has qualified immunity for the good faith performance of her official duties. … Thus the defense of qualified immunity, is not available to Defendant on the claims presented here, and Defendant’s motion to dismiss on the ground of qualified immunity must be denied.

Pelayo v. Port Authority

893 F. Supp. 2d 632 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 27, 2012

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability from civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … If a right is clearly established, qualified immunity will nonetheless function effectively as a shield from liability when “officers of reasonable competence could disagree on whether the conduct at issue was legal.”