Case law

Adam Cmty. Ctr. v. City of Troy

381 F. Supp. 3d 887 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Apr 3, 2019

In contrast, legislative officials performing traditionally executive or administrative discretionary functions are entitled to only qualified immunity if they can establish that their actions were within the scope of their … Qualified immunity for Individual Defendants Defendants argue that the zoning board members are entitled to qualified immunity in connection with Plaintiff's claims.

Harrell v. City of New York

161 F. Supp. 3d 180 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 21, 2016

Qualified immunity shields prosecutors “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … ’s actions were objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law.”

Morris v. Wallace Community College-Selma

125 F. Supp. 2d 1315 · District Court, S.D. Alabama · Jan 8, 2001

Qualified Immunity. … “In this circuit, the law can be 'clearly established’ for qualified immunity purposes only by decisions of the U.S.

Doug Morgan v. Plano Independent School District

610 F.3d 877 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 30, 2010

Qualified immunity thus shields government officials performing discretionary functions from individual liability for civil damages but only “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a … Appellees’ have alleged a violation of clearly established law; therefore, Appellants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Vista McDuffie v. Hopper

982 F. Supp. 817 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Oct 23, 1997

The opinion does so by jumping directly to a discussion of whether the doctor had violated clearly established law, Id. at 721, assuming, without deciding, that qualified immunity necessarily follows § 1983 liability. … Again, however, the court does so by jumping straight to an analysis of clearly established law; it does not address the question whether private party doctors are entitled to claim qualified immunity at all.

Tyquan Stewart v. Parkview Hospital

940 F.3d 1013 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 22, 2019

Police officers enjoy immunity from liability for conduct that “does not violate clearly established statutory or consti‐ tutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. … In these circumstances, Stewart cannot establish that the officers violated a right clearly established under the Fourth Amendment, and qualified immunity ap‐ plies. Id.; see also Wilson v.

Kesler v. King

29 F. Supp. 2d 356 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Dec 7, 1998

With respect to Defendant Wagner’s claim of qualified immunity, the Court has already concluded that Plaintiffs have alleged violations of two clearly established constitutional rights. See Siegert v. … to show that qualified immunity does not bar recovery.

Clayton v. City of Kingston

44 F. Supp. 2d 177 · District Court, N.D. New York · Apr 23, 1999

Overcoming qualified immunity entails a two-part process: “First, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional or statutory right. … A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss if the allegations of the complaint fail to “state a claim of violation of clearly established law.” See Connell v.

K.D. ex rel. Duncan v. White Plains School District

921 F. Supp. 2d 197 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 5, 2013

Qualified Immunity Since Defendants have asserted a qualified immunity defense based on the absence of a clearly established right, the Court begins, not with an analysis of whether KD.’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated … Legal Standard “Qualified immunity was created to shield government officials from civil liability for the performance of discretionary functions so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or

Kemp v. Lawyer

846 F. Supp. 2d 1170 · District Court, D. Colorado · Feb 8, 2012

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 … § 1983 against Defendant Turano, I do not address the second prong of the two-part qualified immunity test-namely, whether the alleged constitutional violation was clearly established at the time of the incident.

Kingsford v. Salt Lake City School District

247 F.3d 1123 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 24, 2001

Fankell , 520 U.S. 911, 915 (1997) (“[A] Federal District Court order rejecting a qualified immunity defense on the ground that the defendant’s actions—if proved—would have violated clearly established law may be appealed … Defendant Shackett also claimed that even if such a right existed it was not clearly established at the time of the events underlying this suit, thus entitling him to qualified immunity.

Jonathan Davidson v. City of Stafford, Texas, et a

848 F.3d 384 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 7, 2017

“Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established … On the second prong of the qualified immunity defense, recent Supreme Court decisions addressing claims for excessive force have “reiterate[d] the longstanding principle that ‘clearly established law’ should not be defined

Anderson v. Board of Regents

822 F. Supp. 2d 1342 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Sep 30, 2011

Qualified immunity confers complete protection upon government officials sued in their personal capacities unless their conduct “ ‘violate[s] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … In addition, in order to avoid summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, plaintiff must show that the property or liberty interest was well established and that the process he received was clearly inadequate.

Schroeder v. County of Nassau

158 F. Supp. 3d 123 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 28, 2016

violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … “Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that the defendants have the burden of raising in their answer and establishing at trial or on a motion for summary judgment.”

Opinion Number

Louisiana Attorney General Reports · Jan 31, 2000

E.D. 1998), proves helpful, as the court stated: Two kinds of immunity exists for government officials absolute immunity and qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects an official from liability unless the official violates "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."

William O. Fuller v. Joe Carollo

977 F.3d 1012 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 25, 2020

Carollo’s motion sought dismissal of the complaint based, in part, on qualified immunity. … The magistrate judge concluded that Carollo was not entitled to qualified immunity because his alleged conduct violated clearly established law.

Johnson v. Clifton

74 F.3d 1087 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 26, 1996

A public official may immediately appeal a denial of qualified immunity where the disputed issue involves whether or not the defendant's conduct constitutes a violation of clearly established law. … clearly established law.

Smith v. Four Corners Mental Health Center, Inc.

473 Utah Adv. Rep. 50 · Utah Supreme Court · May 13, 2003

For the Randalls to benefit from this prior decision granting immunity to DHS, they must clearly establish a relationship with DHS that legally qualifies them to receive the same treatment. 126 The Randalls argue that they … by the Randalls do not, however, clearly establish that they were employees of DHS rather than independent contractors.

Carew v. Centracchio

17 F. Supp. 2d 56 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Mar 4, 1998

Such officials have qualified immunity if they can prove either of the following: “the federal law allegedly violated was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, or ... at summary judgment, there is … no genuine dispute of material fact that would prevent a finding that the defendants’ actions, with regard to applying or following such clearly established law, were objectively *59 reasonable.”

Radloff v. City of Oelwein

284 F. Supp. 2d 1145 · District Court, N.D. Iowa · May 19, 2003

Conclusions of Law Qualified Immunity A government official who performs discretionary functions is protected from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity as long as the official’s conduct did not violate clearly established … The officers are not entitled to qualified immunity on the plaintiffs claim of excessive force. The right against unreasonable seizure of one’s person is clearly established law.