Case law

Aspinall v. Thomas

118 F. Supp. 3d 664 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 12, 2015

If there was a violation of a constitutional right and the right was clearly established, then qualified immunity does not apply. … have failed to demonstrate that the right was not clearly established, the eourt cannot conclude that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Atwood v. Tullos

312 F. Supp. 3d 553 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Apr 24, 2018

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct " 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.' … For purposes of the qualified immunity analysis, it was clearly established at the time of the incident that a traffic stop must be predicated on reasonable suspicion.

Fox v. Doran

974 F. Supp. 276 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 4, 1997

Qualified Immunity In general, public officials are entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct does not violate constitutional rights that were clearly established at the time the alleged violation occurred. … Even when a plaintiff’s federal rights are so clearly defined that a reasonable public official would know that his actions might violate those rights, qualified immunity might still be available as a bar to a plaintiff’s

Wagner v. Swarts

827 F. Supp. 2d 85 · District Court, N.D. New York · Nov 17, 2011

Determining whether a government official is entitled to qualified immunity requires an answer to the following questions: (1) was a constitutionally protected right violated; and if so, (2) was that right “clearly established … Accordingly, an official is shielded by qualified immunity if his conduct either did not infringe on a “clearly established constitutional right, or if it was objectively reasonable for [him] to believe his conduct did not

Ryan v. Burlington County, NJ

708 F. Supp. 623 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 6, 1989

Qualified Immunity The defense of qualified immunity serves to insulate a governmental official from liability in civil damages when the discretionary conduct of that official “does not violate clearly established statutory … In determining whether caselaw evidenced a clearly established right, courts are to examine the state of the law as of the time of the challenged conduct rather than the time at which the qualified immunity defense is raised

Russell v. Coughlin

774 F. Supp. 189 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 25, 1991

immunity applies because rule not clearly established in this circuit or by decisions of Supreme Court). … Given that the right to an independent assessment of the credibility of confidential informants was clearly established at the time of Hearing I, Captain Wright is not entitled to qualified immunity from liability for his

MacDonald v. Town of Eastham

946 F. Supp. 2d 235 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 24, 2013

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields state officials from liability for damages under § 1983 where their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which *239 a reasonable person … the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the defendant’s alleged violation.”

Kerns v. Board of Commissioners

888 F. Supp. 2d 1176 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Aug 22, 2012

Clearly Established Rights in the Qualified-Immunity Analysis. … Fitzgerald, when the Supreme Court moved to an objective test, the clearly-established prong became a part of the qualified immunity test.

United States v. Jenkins

319 F. Supp. 196 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Mar 6, 1969

Williams v. Bitner

359 F. Supp. 2d 370 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 22, 2005

This doctrine, known as “qualified immunity,” provides not only a defense to liability, but “immunity from suit.” Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 227 , 112 S.Ct. 534 , 116 L.Ed.2d 589 (1991); Mitchell v. … And none are protected by qualified immunity.

Gittens v. Sullivan

720 F. Supp. 40 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 19, 1989

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability as long as their actions are discretionary in nature and do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person should … The explicit requirements of Wolff are clearly established constitutional rights.

McGuinness v. Dubois

893 F. Supp. 2 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 14, 1995

The defendants argued that, with the claim so limited, they were entitled to qualified immunity as matter of law. Upon consideration of the arguments presented, this Court agrees. … Maass, 12 F.3d 1444, 1457-58 (9th Cir.1993), the state of the law in this area does not clearly establish that the conditions of McGuinness’ confinement violated the Constitution.

Rucker v. Johnson

724 F. Supp. 568 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 29, 1989

If the law supporting such relief was not clearly established as of May 1988, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. See Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987); Rakovich v. … Wykoff 's unsupported holding did not clearly establish the law, especially in light of the other precedents discussed. [5] Defendants, therefore would be qualifiedly immune.

Rasul v. Rumsfeld

433 F. Supp. 2d 58 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 8, 2006

Furthermore, because the defendants’ alleged actions violate rights clearly established at the time the defendants allegedly committed them, they are not entitled to any qualified immunity. … The Defendants Are Not Entitled to Qualified Immunity The defendants argue that even if RFRA applies in GTMO, that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because its application in GTMO was not clearly established

Checker Cab Phila. v. Phila. Parking Auth.

306 F. Supp. 3d 748 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 12, 2018

"The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was 'clearly established' at the time of the violation." Id. at 1866 . … because the right asserted was not clearly established.

Doe v. University Of Mississippi

361 F. Supp. 3d 597 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Jan 16, 2019

Section 1983 Claims Finally, Murry and Ussery assert qualified immunity as to Doe's individual-capacity § 1983 claims against them. … An official sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless it is shown that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.

Reno v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board

697 F. Supp. 2d 659 · District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Mar 23, 2010

Whether Defendant, Placide, Is Entitled to Qualified Immunity For a right to be clearly established such that qualified immunity is inapplicable, “the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official … establishes the applicable law for purposes of qualified immunity, and that the plaintiff has met her burden of demonstrating that qualified immunity does not apply in this case.

Druckenmiller v. United States

548 F. Supp. 193 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 1, 1982

As noted supra, the scope of the qualified immunity which the individual FBI agents retain is determined by reference to objective criteria; i.e., whether they violated “clearly established” law. … The Harlow court redefined the contours of the qualified immunity defense; we accordingly requested counsel to re-brief the qualified immunity issue. 2 .

Calloway v. Fauver

544 F. Supp. 584 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 2, 1982

This was not a clearly established constitutional right during the periods relevant to this case. … Robinson, supra, can be said to create clearly established constitutional rights which would strip defendants of their qualified immunity.

Peters v. Peters

547 F. Supp. 2d 165 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Feb 21, 2008

Discussion Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, police officers may not be held *169 liable for conduct that “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Qualified immunity is warranted if either (1) the official’s actions did not violate clearly established law, or (2) even if the actions violated a clearly established law, the official was objectively reasonable in believing