Case law

Johnson v. Wilson

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 10, 2024

force against Plaintiff and Officer Wilson was not entitled to qualified immunity as a bystander. … immunity and qualified privilege.

Brown v. Selwin

250 F. Supp. 2d 299 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 24, 1999

(Mukasey Order dated June 18, 1998). 17 *309 Qualified Immunity Defense Brown’s claims against the State Defendants may (also) be dismissed on the grounds of qualified immunity. … “Even where the plaintiffs federal rights and the scope of the official’s permissible conduct are clearly established, the qualified immunity defense protects a government actor if it was ‘objectively reasonable’ for him

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.

Larson v. Snow College

115 F. Supp. 2d 1296 · District Court, D. Utah · Sep 15, 2000

Qualified Immunity Defendants next argue that Larson’s § 1983 claims against the individual defendants must be dismissed because the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. 12 Under the qualified immunity … right was clearly established so that reasonable officials would have understood that their conduct violated that right.

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

Ballas v. City of Reading

168 F. Supp. 2d 398 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 3, 2001

Under Rule 12(c), the court cannot grant judgment on the pleadings “unless the movant clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” … To qualify as legislative, the act in question must be both substantively and procedurally legislative in nature. In re Montgomery County, 215 F.3d 367, 376 (3d Cir.2000).

Sudac Ex Rel. Sudac v. Hoang

378 F. Supp. 2d 1298 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jul 7, 2005

Qualified Immunity Standard Under certain circumstances, the affirmative defense of qualified immunity shields public officials from individual liability in actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . Harlow v. … Anderson established that he was unarmed. Id. ■ With regard to Mr. Anderson’s excessive force claim, a jury found that Officer Russell used excessive force, but that he was entitled to qualified immunity. Id.

Barney v. Gillespie

813 F. Supp. 1537 · District Court, D. Utah · Feb 11, 1993

Under the circumstance Whittaker may validly claim qualified immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . The circumstances of this case involve two basis for qualified immunity. … In this cáse, the applicable law was not clearly settled in 1987 and it is even very doubtful that it is clearly established now. In Anderson v.

Redmond v. United States Parole Commission

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 4, 2019

The Chair and Commissioners enjoy qualified immunity for each of Redmond’s claims. Cf. Redmond v. … right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.”

Hamilton v. Gavin

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 22, 2023

“Incarcerated people have a clearly established right to be free from physical harm inflicted by others in the institution.” Kemp v. Fulton Cnty., 27 F.4th 491, 494 (7th Cir. 2022) (citing Farmer v. … Qualified immunity protects a government official from liability for actions which do “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Smith v. Equifax Information Services, LLC

522 F. Supp. 2d 822 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Nov 15, 2007

Defendant further argues that “Plaintiffs request for injunctive relief is an attempt to circumvent [the] qualified immunity [provided to consumer reporting agencies under § 1681h(e)] and impose obligations on CSC beyond … Plaintiff claims that defendant is not provided qualified immunity under § 1681h(e) since only disclosures under §§ 1681g, 1681h, and 1681m are protected under this provision. Id. at 10-15.

Ascolese v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority

925 F. Supp. 351 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 17, 1996

Van de Beek’s Right to Qualified Immunity Finally, van de Beek argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity as to Ascolese’s section 1983 claim. … SEPTA’s motion for summary judgment as to van de Beek’s qualified immunity is DENIED. 4.

Ketron v. Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hospital Authority

919 F. Supp. 280 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Jan 23, 1996

They contend the enabling act thus fails to clearly. establish the EMC as a political subdivision of the state. … Government officials enjoy qualified immunity if their “conduct does not violate clearly established federal ‘statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”’ Gossman v.

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).

Curtis v. City of Gooding

844 F. Supp. 2d 1101 · District Court, D. Idaho · Jan 4, 2012

Perry argues that Curtis fails to establish facts which would make him individually liable and, further, that he is entitled to qualified immunity. See Defs.’ Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. … Perry’s Qualified Immunity In § 1983 actions, the doctrine of qualified immunity protects state actors from personal liability for on-the-job conduct so long as the conduct is objectively reasonable and does not violate clearly

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.

Thompson v. Board of Educ. of the City of Chicago

711 F. Supp. 394 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 21, 1989

as to defeat the individual defendants’ claims to qualified immunity. … In those cases involving the “balancing of competing interests,” the standard may be “clearly established” under Harlow , but its application is so fact dependent that the “law” can rarely be “clearly established.”

O'Connor v. Spain

84 F. Supp. 3d 60 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 5, 2015

Even assuming a constitutional violation, however, Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity and therefore the Court will enter summary judgment on Count II. 3 Qualified immunity provides *66 public officials “breathing … To overcome a public official’s qualified immunity defense in a § 1983 suit, a plaintiff must show that the violation of her constitutional right was “clearly established” at the time of the violation.

Campbell v. City of Philadelphia

927 F. Supp. 2d 148 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 26, 2013

Qualified Immunity The defendants next argue that even if they did use excessive force they are entitled to qualified immunity. Def. MSJ at 26. … Qualified immunity protects government officials from suit “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Pearson v.