Case law

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

Christian v. City of Dallas

64 F. Supp. 2d 617 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Sep 22, 1999

Chief Bennie Click is entitled to summary judgment on the claims against him on the basis of qualified immunity. Defendants also argue the Chief Bennie Click is entitled to qualified immunity from Plaintiffs claims. … The question of whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity depends on whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of clearly established constitutional rights and whether the official’s conduct was objectively

Hall v. Ochs

623 F. Supp. 367 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 27, 1985

Farrell, at 6 *374 (“The district court erred when it stated ‘the issue of qualified immunity is almost universally one which presents a question of fact to be determined by the trier of fact.’ ... … “Factual disputes will result in denial of summary judgment” and in submission of the case to the jury “when they are relevant to the qualified immunity defense----” Floyd , at 6.

Morton v. City of Little Rock

728 F. Supp. 543 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Dec 26, 1989

Furthermore, even under qualified immunity standards, the defense of qualified immunity turns on the “objective legal reasonableness” of the action, assessed in the light of the legal rules that were “clearly established” … It was clearly a violation of law for him to refuse to honor the subpoena, and it was equally clear that judicial officials are entitled to examine the expunged records.

Healey v. Bendick

628 F. Supp. 681 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Feb 12, 1986

As the Court has most recently noted, whether or not an officer should prevail on his qualified immunity defense “depends upon the ‘objective reasonableness of [his] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established … Basing the suitability vel non of Bendick’s conduct solely upon reference to clearly established law, as required in Davis, 104 S.Ct. at 3018 , he is entitled to the anodyne of qualified executive immunity and is thereby

Benoit v. Claremont

District Court, D. New Hampshire · Nov 3, 1995

To be "clearly established, " the contours of right must be sufficiently clear so that a reasonable official would understand that his actions violate that right. Anderson v. … may invoke qualified immunity.

Perrea v. Cincinnati Public Schools

709 F. Supp. 2d 628 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 20, 2010

A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if her conduct violated a constitutional right, but that right was not clearly established at the time of the violation. Id. Courts can examine either issue first. … For these reasons, the Court concludes that Hahn did not violate a clearly established right and she is entitled to qualified immunity on Perrea’s equal protection claim. B.

Zaragoza v. City of San Antonio, Tex.

464 F. Supp. 1163 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Jan 15, 1979

The immunity in either case should be the same — the qualified good-faith and reasonable-belief immunity recognized in Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 , 94 S.Ct. 1683 , 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974). … “We therefore hold that, in a suit for damages arising from unconstitutional action, federal executive officials exercising discretion are entitled only to the qualified immunity specified in Scheuer , subject to those exceptional

(PC) Davis v. Akabike

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 27, 2021

Qualified Immunity 14 Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from damages5 unless their conduct 15 violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … qu alified immunity because Plaintiff cannot show 28 a violation of a constitutional right that was clearly established.

Jones v. Hobbs

864 F. Supp. 2d 808 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Apr 5, 2012

Qualified Immunity As the magistrate explained, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity unless they violated a statutory or constitutional right which was “clearly established” at the time. … diet suiting his religious beliefs was not a clearly established right.

Shapiro v. Cooke

552 F. Supp. 581 · District Court, N.D. New York · Oct 27, 1982

Plaintiff contends that, had he worked in Maryland as an “Assistant People’s Counsel’^ for the past five years, he would clearly satisfy the requirements of the New York rule. … Simply because the plaintiff cannot qualify for this preference, but must qualify on the same terms as the life-long citizen of New York, gives him no right to complain.

Walker v. Woodford

593 F. Supp. 2d 1140 · District Court, S.D. California · Aug 28, 2008

Qualified Immunity Defendants have raised the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. … This, too, supports their defense of qualified immunity.

United States v. Melekh

190 F. Supp. 67 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 28, 1960

The defendant neither qualifies for nor claims such immunity. … While it will clearly be necessary that all officials, whatever their rank, should be granted immunity from legal process in respect of acts done in the course of their official duties, whether in the country of which they

Case v. City of New York

233 F. Supp. 3d 372 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 10, 2017

Further, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. … Finally, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

Quarterman v. City of Springfield

716 F. Supp. 2d 67 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 28, 2009

Defendants’ Immunity Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified and/or absolute immunity against suits for damages under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983. … Immunity Neither Defendant is entitled to absolute or qualified immunity on the remaining state law claims.

Salas Garcia v. Cesar Perez

777 F. Supp. 137 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Oct 31, 1991

State actors are entitled to qualified immunity from damages under Section 1983 if their challenged behavior did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights “of which a reasonable person would have … In the lexicon of qualified immunity, there is room for mistaken judgments”).

Allman v. Smith

6 F. Supp. 3d 889 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 13, 2014

Qualified Immunity The final issue is whether Mayor Smith is individually protected from liability by qualified immunity. … As discussed in more detail above, it does appear that these two arguments have merit because the Cashier and Customer Service Supervisor positions are clearly ministerial functions, thus qualified immunity should not apply

Price v. Engert

589 F. Supp. 2d 240 · District Court, W.D. New York · Dec 10, 2008

immunity. … Qualified immunity shields public officials from liability for civil damages, to the extent that their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Thorp v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 30, 2018

Qualified Immunity Thorp next sets his sights on the qualified-immunity analysis in the prior Opinion. … The case went on to hold that qualified immunity should instead rely on “the objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law.” Id. at 818 (emphasis added).

Cignetti v. Healy

89 F. Supp. 2d 106 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 21, 2000

Prosecutors enjoy only qualified immunity from § 1983 liability as to their non-prosecu-torial activities. … Qualified immunity operates to shield government officials exercising discretionary powers from § 1983 liability "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a