Case law

Velazquez v. Municipal Government

91 F. Supp. 3d 176 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Mar 2, 2015

Qualified Immunity. … In order to determine whether qualified immunity is appropriate, a court must identify: (1) whether the constitutional right asserted by the plaintiff was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation; and (2

Smith v. Copeland

892 F. Supp. 1218 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Apr 25, 1995

The doctrine as applied to § 1983 claims is not an absolute immunity, but a qualified immunity to which an official is not entitled unless his conduct was objectively reasonable with reference to clearly established law. … conduct at the time of plaintiff's detention were not clearly established.

Mazor v. Shelton

637 F. Supp. 330 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 18, 1986

Plaintiff must establish personal responsibility. Duchesne v. Sugarman, 566 F.2d at 830 . … The Supreme Court has recognized two types of immunity defenses: absolute and qualified. Absolute immunity is accorded to government officials who perform judicial or quasi-judicial functions.

Gullick v. Ott

517 F. Supp. 2d 1063 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Oct 9, 2007

Is Defendant Entitled to Qualified Immunity? … Defendant’s second argument on qualified immunity is that as of August 2006 no law clearly established that his conduct was sufficiently serious to constitute retaliation under the First Amendment.

Vega v. Vivoni

389 F. Supp. 2d 160 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 1, 2005

SUPERVISORY LIABILITY AND QUALIFIED IMMUNITY AS TO CO-DEFENDANTS VIVONI AND RIVERA BLONDET. … based on qualified immunity BE GRANTED.

International Aerobatics Club Chapter 1 v. City of Morris

76 F. Supp. 3d 767 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 22, 2014

Finally, the individual defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. 1. … Qualified Immunity The individual defendants also maintain that they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Estate of Arrington v. Michael

914 F. Supp. 2d 650 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 19, 2012

An officer who violates a constitutional right may not avail himself of qualified immunity if the “right was clearly established, such that ‘it would have been clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in … The relevant constitutional right was clearly established as of July 2009.

Gates v. District of Columbia

66 F. Supp. 3d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 29, 2014

Qualified immunity The police defendants seek summary judgment in their favor, asserting that the doctrine of qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for civil damages for official actions taken. … However, “qualified immunity does not shield government officials who ‘violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Arrington, 473 F.3d at 338 -39 (quoting

Doe v. Patton

377 F. Supp. 2d 615 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Mar 23, 2005

qualified official immunity for claims brought against him in his individual capacity; and (6) there was no waiver of Salyer’s qualified official immunity because there was ■ no evidence that Salyer had negligently performed … Second, we consider whether the violation involved a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known.

Costenbader-Jacobson v. Pennsylvania

227 F. Supp. 2d 304 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 6, 2002

Qualified Immunity Finally, Defendants assert the defense of qualified immunity. … Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from suit under § 1983 when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory and constitutional rights, the existence of which a reasonable person would have known

Simmons v. Baker

842 F. Supp. 883 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Feb 3, 1994

Qualified Immunity Government officials have qualified immunity for discretionary functions so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Both Poe and McCann argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because, if Simmons’ constitutional rights were violated, they were not clearly established at the time so that a reasonable person in either of their

Bach v. Pataki

289 F. Supp. 2d 217 · District Court, N.D. New York · Sep 23, 2003

By his affidavit, plaintiff has established facts demonstrating that as a matter of law he does not qualify for a permit under section 400.00 of New York’s Penal Law by its plain terms and as it has been construed by New … New York clearly has a strong interest in licensing firearms.

Lum v. County of San Joaquin

756 F. Supp. 2d 1243 · District Court, E.D. California · Nov 18, 2010

In the absence of a clearly established special relationship, the court should apply the multi-factor public policy analysis first articulated in Rowland v. … Collins is clearly distinguishable, addressing as it does the question of hiring and firing. In any event, here plaintiffs rely on long-standing practice to establish authority, a matter not addressed by Collins . 4 .

Awalt v. Marketti

74 F. Supp. 3d 909 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 24, 2014

A “plaintiff seeking to defeat a defense of qualified immunity must establish two things: first, that she has alleged a deprivation of a constitutional right; and second, that the right in question was ‘clearly established … Qualified Immunity Dr. Cullinan and Nurse Clauson also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Thomas v. Ramos

918 F. Supp. 228 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 21, 1996

Ramos does, however, contend that he is entitled to qualified immunity from suit. As the defendant has offered no challenge to the merits, we address directly the issue of qualified immunity. … “clearly established” at the time the alleged deprivation occurred.

Foster v. Anderson

165 F. Supp. 3d 781 · District Court, N.D. Iowa · Feb 29, 2016

“Qualified immunity protects a government official from liability in a [section] 1983 claim unless his or her conduct violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have … “To overcome qualified immunity, plaintiffs must demonstrate both that ‘(1) there was a deprivation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.’ ” Davis

Manos v. Caira

162 F. Supp. 2d 979 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 30, 2001

police officers do not violate clearly-established statutory or constitutional rights. … Further, because defendants do not address whether those constitutional rights were clearly established at the time of the deprivation, the Court finds that defendants’ qualified immunity argument has not been properly raised

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.

Vicky M. v. Northeastern Educational Intermediate Unit 19

486 F. Supp. 2d 437 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 15, 2007

Qualified Immunity Additionally, the Supervisor Defendants argue that they enjoy qualified immunity. … With regard to the federal claims, public officials generally enjoy qualified immunity for their actions unless those actions violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would know.

Spalding v. City of Chicago

186 F. Supp. 3d 884 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 11, 2016

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … To remove the shield of qualified immunity from the defendant officers, the constitutional right that they allegedly violated must at the time of the violation have been clearly established “in a particularized sense” and