Case law

Natal-Rosario v. Puerto Rico Police Department

609 F. Supp. 2d 194 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Apr 2, 2009

Qualified Immunity This Court will now discuss whether the doctrine of qualified immunity bars Plaintiffs’ claims against Caldero. 4 Qualified immunity protects public officials from the specter of damages liability for judgment … Therefore, this Court will deny the motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds. 4.

Leary v. Livingston County

528 F.3d 438 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 10, 2008

As to Stone, we affirm the district court’s denial of qualified immunity; as to McGuekin, we reverse the district court’s denial of qualified immunity because the force used was de minimis. *441 I. … To overcome a qualified-immunity defense in the setting of a constitutional tort, a plaintiff must establish (1) that the defendant violated a “constitutional right” and (2) that the right “was clearly established.”

Patterson v. Armstrong County Children and Youth Services

141 F. Supp. 2d 512 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 22, 2001

Qualified Immunity — Substantive Due Process All defendants raise qualified immunity as a defense to plaintiffs’ civil rights claims. … The “clearly established law” element of qualified immunity is flexible enough to embrace clearly established law of other circuits. See, e.g., Turiano v.

Tinney v. Shores

77 F.3d 378 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 8, 1996

summary judgment based on qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects government actors in their individual capacities from civil damage claims, provided that their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights.

McMORROW v. LITTLE

109 F.3d 432 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 17, 1997

On appeal the officials argue that the law was not clearly established, that they are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim, and that McMorrow's claim must be dismissed. … immunity because it was not clearly established that their conduct was unconstitutional.

Santana v. Calderon

188 F. Supp. 2d 160 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Feb 14, 2002

The general rule regarding qualified immunity is that government officials are immune from suit when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory authority or constitutional rights, which a reasonable person … qualified immunity.

Wilson v. Poulos

697 F. Supp. 2d 1192 · District Court, S.D. California · Mar 2, 2010

Defendant Poulos’s entitlement to qualified immunity is clear under the second prong of the Katz test. 1 The “clearly established” inquiry requires the Court to look to the time of the events in question. … Since this right was not clearly established at the time of Plaintiffs incarceration, Defendant Poulos is entitled to qualified immunity.

Thames v. City of Westland

310 F. Supp. 3d 783 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Apr 20, 2018

Qualified Immunity Defendant officers argue qualified immunity shields them from liability under § 1983. … 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 would have

Roucchio v. Coughlin

29 F. Supp. 2d 72 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 30, 1998

Qualified immunity shields government employees from liability for conduct that “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id. … In order to establish qualified immunity, a defendant government official must demonstrate that his or her conduct “did not violate ‘clearly established rights’ of which a reasonable person would have known, or that it was

Lilienthal v. City of Suffolk

275 F. Supp. 2d 684 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Aug 4, 2003

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Defendant Outlaw has raised the issue of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages in a section 1983 action “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Hickman v. Laskodi

45 F. App'x 451 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 30, 2002

Laskodi contends that the doctrine of qualified immunity shields him from liability on Hickman’s claim. We review the district court’s denial of qualified immunity de novo. Blake v. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions will not incur liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Mahoney v. Hankin

844 F.2d 64 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 12, 1988

clearly established at the time of the conduct in issue." … The Mitchell court "emphasize[d] ... that the appealable issue is a purely legal one: whether the facts alleged ... support a claim of violation of clearly established law."

Stewart v. Beaufort County

481 F. Supp. 2d 483 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Feb 6, 2007

Is Deputy Calhoun Entitled to Qualified Immunity? … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, law enforcement officers performing their discretionary duties “are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Edmond v. Winters

226 F. Supp. 3d 914 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Dec 22, 2016

Qualified immunity insulates government officials from liability in their individual capacities so long as they have not violated clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Parrish v. … Even if the application of the Arkansas Sex Offender Registration Act to Edmond violated the ex post facto clause, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the right at issue was not clearly established at

Holloway v. Brechtse

279 F. Supp. 2d 613 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 18, 2003

Qualified Immunity Finally, Defendant argues Plaintiffs complaint should be dismissed because Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. … The standard for qualified immunity is an objective one that asks whether a reasonable public official would know that his specific conduct violated clearly established rights. Grant v.

Tremain Spivey, Shirley Spivey, as Next Friend for Tremain Spivey v. Michael Elliott, Lynn Crothers, Wilma Davis, Carolyn Mitchell

29 F.3d 1522 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 26, 1994

The defendants are entitled to qualified *1527 immunity if that law was not clearly established at the time. We hold it was not. … Because this right was not clearly established at the time this suit was brought, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. We affirm the district court’s grant of defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

Ortega v. City of Kansas City, Kansas

659 F. Supp. 1201 · District Court, D. Kansas · Mar 18, 1987

Qualified Immunity. Defendants argue that the court erred in holding that the individual defendants were not entitled to the defense of qualified immunity. … We recognize that in the ordinary case, an official’s violation of clearly established state statutes does not deprive an official of qualified immunity. See Davis v.

H. John Putnam v. Diane Keller

332 F.3d 541 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 18, 2003

summary judgment motion premised on qualified immunity. … is clearly established.

Connor v. Foster

833 F. Supp. 727 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 1, 1993

Public officials are immune from liability for monetary damages under § 1983 if their conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … Qualified immunity, of course, bars only Con-nor's claim for damages.

Bonamo v. Betz

92 Mass. App. Ct. 1122 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jan 19, 2018

The doctrine of qualified immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012), applies equally to MCRA claims, Duarte v. … As a matter of law then, the judge properly concluded that the defendant was entitled to qualified immunity under the MCRA. Judgment affirmed .