Case law

Shuford v. Conway

86 F. Supp. 3d 1344 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Feb 12, 2015

The burden now shifts to Plaintiffs to establish that qualified immunity is not appropriate. 2. Inquiry “The qualified immunity inquiry usually involves two prongs. … immunity test (i.e., constitutional violation, not the clearly established law prong).

Haas v. Berrien County Sheriff's Department

658 F. Supp. 877 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Apr 30, 1987

With regard to plaintiffs section 1983 claim, defendants are in essence claiming that they are entitled to the defense of qualified immunity. … Finally, plaintiff should clearly separate her state and federal law claims in her amended complaint. B.

Barron v. PGA Tour, Inc.

670 F. Supp. 2d 674 · District Court, W.D. Tennessee · Nov 16, 2009

In addition to sexual relations, Barron also claims that his low Testosterone causes fatigue and compromises his immune system. … Barron argues in his post-hearing memorandum of law that "[i]t is well established that if the party seeking the temporary restraining order can establish the last three factors listed above, then the first element (likelihood

Shostak v. United States Postal Service

655 F. Supp. 764 · District Court, D. Maine · Feb 12, 1987

Economou, 438 U.S. 478 , 98 S.Ct. 2894 , 57 L.Ed.2d 895 (1978), federal officials are entitled to only qualified immunity unless they are in an exceptional situation in which absolute immunity is essential for the conduct … No such exceptional situation has been shown to exist in this case and, therefore, questions of fact exist as to whether or not Defendants’ actions fall within the qualified immunity delineated in Butz .

Owens v. Town of Delhi

469 F. Supp. 2d 403 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Jan 4, 2007

Defendants claim that Owens consented to search, and alternatively, that Officer Nielsen is entitled to qualified immunity because his conduct was objectively reasonable under the circumstances. … Assuming that the plaintiff has raised a genuine issue of material fact for trial on the constitutional issue, the court must then address the qualified immunity issue: whether it was clearly established that the officer

Wilson v. Maricopa County

463 F. Supp. 2d 987 · District Court, D. Arizona · Nov 9, 2006

Finally, if the right was clearly established, yet based on the circumstances a reasonable person in the defendant’s position could have made a mistake regarding what the law required, the defendant will be entitled to immunity … In addition, Plaintiffs have shown that the right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the assault.

Anzaldua v. Northeast Ambulance & Fire Protection District

7 F. Supp. 3d 941 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Mar 17, 2014

Defendants further claim they are entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff cannot show he had a clearly established constitutional right to make false and defamatory statements about Fire District. … The Eighth Circuit takes “a broad view of what constitutes clearly established law for the purposes of a qualified immunity inquiry.” Bearden, 475 F.3d at 929 .

Danley v. Allyn

485 F. Supp. 2d 1260 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Apr 24, 2007

The court believed that the second amended complaint clearly showed on its face that defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity. … Thus, the “clearly established” test for evaluating such an offending circumstance, as enunciated in Harlow v.

Kaibel v. Municipal Building Commission

920 F. Supp. 2d 1000 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Jan 31, 2013

The qualified immunity defense is evaluated under an objective standard such that “[gjovernment officials are ‘generally shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Plaintiffs thus contend that the law was “clearly established” and that the individual Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. (Id.)

Terry v. Bobb

827 F. Supp. 366 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Aug 5, 1993

Such decisions are clearly protected by legislative immunity. … immunity instead of absolute legislative immunity.

Tompkins v. City of New York

50 F. Supp. 3d 426 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 10, 2014

Qualified immunity is a defense to malicious prosecution claims. See Betts v. Shearman, 751 F.3d 78, 83 (2d Cir.2014). … Because the federal qualified immunity analysis “also applies to, and *440 controls, the qualified immunity questions presented under New York law,” Officer Knights lacks qualified immunity from plaintiffs malicious prosecution

Huddleston v. Shirley

787 F. Supp. 109 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Mar 20, 1992

The governor, of course, pled qualified immunity. Id. at 1009 . … The qualified immunity defense is only available to protect Shirley, when sued in his individual capacity, from personal liability for actions taken in his official capacity.

Parker v. Bowser

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 10, 2026

“Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Rivas-Villegas v. … Because qualified immunity is “immunity from suit,” the Supreme Court has “repeatedly . . . stressed the importance of resolving immunity questions at the earliest possible stage in litigation.” Pearson v.

Waring v. Meachum

175 F. Supp. 2d 230 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Aug 24, 2001

Qualified Immunity Defense Although the Court has found that plaintiffs failed to state an Eighth Amendment claim, the court will, in the alternative, address defendants’ qualified immunity defense. … The first step in the qualified immunity analysis is to determine whether the law in question was clearly established at the time the action occurred.

Derstein v. Benson

714 F. Supp. 481 · District Court, D. Kansas · May 22, 1989

Defendants moved to dismiss on the ground they were entitled to qualified immunity because the law in Kansas was not clearly established at the time of plaintiff’s termination. … Accordingly, the court concludes that the Kansas law recognizing implied employment contracts was clearly established in 1981, and defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity in this case.

Rees v. Office of Children and Youth

744 F. Supp. 2d 434 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2010

“The doctrine of 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 … Accordingly, the individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity relative to Count I of the complaint.

SKANDHA v. Savoie

811 F. Supp. 2d 535 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 18, 2011

Qualified Immunity Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity and therefore should not be subjected to charges of cruel and unusual punishment. … The Court concludes that defendants are not shielded by qualified immunity. The law regarding whether a low cell temperature can constitute an Eighth Amendment violation is clearly established.

McGregor v. City of Olathe, KS

158 F. Supp. 2d 1225 · District Court, D. Kansas · Mar 22, 2001

Qualified Immunity To the extent that plaintiff asserts constitutional claims against the defendants in their individual capacities, the defense of qualified immunity is applicable. … The Supreme Court has established a two-part approach to determine if qualified immunity applies.

City of Worcester v. HCA Management Co., Inc.

753 F. Supp. 31 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 26, 1990

Qualified, rather than absolute, immunity applies when a federal employee violates an established constitutional rule, unless "absolute immunity is essential for the conduct of public business.” Butz v. … As the complaint in this case does not allege intentional misconduct by Blue Cross, this Court will not delve into the specific situations in which qualified immunity, instead of absolute immunity, will apply to the actions

Guzman v. Jay

303 F.R.D. 186 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 24, 2014

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, meanwhile, public officials are entitled to immunity from lawsuits for acts undertaken in their official capacity so long as “(1) their conduct does not violate clearly established … This very procedure was endorsed by the Second Circuit in Stephenson and does not constitute forfeiture of Defendant’s Rule 50(b) motion on the qualified immunity issue.