Case law

Salaita v. Kennedy

118 F. Supp. 3d 1068 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 6, 2015

Qualified Immunity Lastly, the University argues that the individual Defendants are all entitled to qualified immunity to the extent that they are sued in their individual capacities. … “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

Smith v. Taylor

503 F. Supp. 2d 538 · District Court, N.D. New York · May 31, 2006

Qualified Immunity The Court now turns to Defendants’ claim of qualified immunity, which the Court will address as it relates to Plaintiffs claims of constitutional violations stemming from the strip frisk/search. … Qualified immunity shields official actors from civil liability, except where they have violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” See Rodriguez v.

Simmang v. Texas Board of Law Examiners

346 F. Supp. 2d 874 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Sep 15, 2004

Absent clear and unambiguous statutory language establishing a waiver of immunity, sovereign immunity protects the state, its agencies and officials from suit in state, court. See City of Mexia v. … In official-capacity suits, such as this one, the defenses of absolute (official) immunity and qualified immunity are unavailable. Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 , . 105 S.Ct. 3099, 3105-06 , 87 L.Ed.2d 114 (1985).

Howell v. Town of Ball

90 F. Supp. 3d 629 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Mar 3, 2015

Qualified or “good faith” immunity is an affirmative defense which must be pled by a defendant seeking its protection. 59 Qualified immunity generally protects government officials performing discretionary functions from … attributed to the Defendants asserting the defense of qualified immunity, Plaintiff must show: (1) that Defendants violated a constitutional right; and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged

Overstreet v. Myers

75 F. Supp. 2d 858 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 22, 1999

Such immunity exists insofar as the conduct in question “does not violate clearly established statutory rights of which a reasonable person would know.” Id. … Sergeant Myers is therefore not entitled to qualified immunity. Ms.

Scott v. City of Lanett

845 F. Supp. 815 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Nov 4, 1993

“Good faith qualified immunity is a doctrine that protects government employees from suit for actions that ‘legitimately require action in which clearly established rights are not implicated’ and the public interest would … For the reasons stated above, Robert Lee Vinson is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.

Allen v. Marietta Bd. of Lights and Water, Inc.

693 F. Supp. 1122 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Nov 18, 1987

In the district court, the defendant asserted qualified immunity for his actions. … The above cases cited by plaintiffs in their motion to reconsider do not change the law in regard to qualified immunity.

Davis v. Bruce

215 F.R.D. 612 · District Court, D. Kansas · Mar 24, 2003

Accordingly, *619 the individual defendants raise the defense of qualified immunity. … Presentation of the defense of qualified immunity shifts the burden to the plaintiff to show that “(1) the official violated a constitutional or statutory right; and (2) the constitutional or statutory right was clearly established

Naturist Society, Inc. v. Fillyaw

858 F. Supp. 1559 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jul 13, 1994

Qualified Immunity Finally, the Court must determine whether defendant Fillyaw is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to the claims against him in his individual capacity. … Public officials are immune in their individual capacities from suits for damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established *1571 statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person should

Richardson v. Oldham

811 F. Supp. 1186 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Dec 16, 1992

In order to satisfy the heightened pleading requirement and maintain a § 1983 action against an official who raises a qualified immunity defense, a complaint must allege with particularity all material facts establishing … Texas law clearly establishes that affidavits notarized by counsel are void in criminal cases. Drummond v. State, 675 S.W.2d 545, 546 (Tex.App.

Mistretta v. Prokesch

5 F. Supp. 2d 128 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 12, 1998

Qualified Immunity “A qualified immunity defense is established if (a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that his action did … is already in the home, Payton is inapplicable; and (3) he is protected by qualified immunity.

Clary v. City of Cape Girardeau

165 F. Supp. 3d 808 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Feb 29, 2016

right, and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the violation.” … If the right was clearly established, then “a reasonable official would have known that [his] actions were unlawful,” and no immunity attaches. Clayborn v.

Pelzer v. City of Philadelphia

656 F. Supp. 2d 517 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 31, 2009

Qualified immunity Officer Burton argues that even if the court determined his actions violated Pelzer's constitutional rights, he is entitled to qualified immunity and the plaintiffs claim should be dismissed. … 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

Daley v. Harber

234 F. Supp. 2d 27 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 15, 2002

a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. … Although the qualified immunity standard is “not a stringent test,” Rivera v. Murphy, 979 *31 F.2d 259, 263 (1st Cir.1992), Harber has failed to meet it.

Lobato v. New Mexico Environment Department, Environmental Health Division

838 F. Supp. 2d 1213 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Mar 21, 2011

Qualified immunity is unavailable where officers have violated a “clearly established” constitutional right of which a “reasonable person” would have known. See Hope v. … Qualified immunity involves a two-part test: (a) whether the officer committed a constitutional violation and (b) if so, whether the right was clearly established. See id.; Pearson v.

St. Louis v. Morris

573 F. Supp. 2d 846 · District Court, D. Delaware · Jul 29, 2008

Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Only then may the court proceed to determine if the right violated was clearly established. Id.

Flood v. State of Alabama Dept. of Indus. Relations

948 F. Supp. 1535 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Dec 10, 1996

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … However, because Pate and Willett have asserted qualified immunity, Flood “must establish more than broad legal truisms; he ... must demonstrate that the law fixed the contours of the right so clearly that a reasonable official

Smith v. City of Elyria

857 F. Supp. 1203 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 28, 1994

An individual defendant is qualifiedly immune from personal liability for damages under § 1983 if a reasonable police officer could have believed that his or her actions were lawful, in light of clearly established law and … However, the Court finds that these rights were not “clearly established” at the time of the officers’ actions here.

Marlatt v. Murray County Jail

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Oct 29, 2024

Qualified Immunity Application of the summary judgment standard slightly differs where, as here, an individual defendant asserts the affirmative defense of qualified immunity … To overcome this defense, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the defendant violated a clearly established constitutional right. See Dist. of Columbia v. Wesby, 583 U.S. 48, 62-63 (2018).

Thompson v. Montemuro

383 F. Supp. 1200 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 23, 1974

Public officials are not immune simply because they operate in a discretionary situation; they may be held liable when they act in bad faith or in a manner which is arbitrary, fanciful, or clearly unreasonable. … Of this immunity the Supreme Court recently has stated: [A] qualified immunity is available to officers of the executive branch of Government, the variation dependent upon the scope of discretion and responsibilities of the