-
686 F. Supp. 620 N.D. Ohio May 18, 1988 No. C86-3969
Put simply, if a defendant did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, the defendant was entitled to qualified immunity.
If a defendant did violate a clearly established constitutional right, he was not entitled to qualified immunity.
The Supreme Court, in Creighton , further clarified the term "clearly established law” as it is used in the standard for qualified immunity.
-
253 F. Supp. 2d 301 D. Connecticut March 26, 2003 No. CIV.A.3:00 CV 345(CF)
Clearly Established Right As noted above, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if they did not violate Chipperini’s “clearly established” rights when they arrested her.
Similarly, the Second Circuit has held that the law cannot be “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes by district court opinions, but only by the decisions of circuit courts or the- Supreme Court.
Objectively Reasonable Having determined that the law was clearly established for qualified immunity purposes, the court is left with the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis: was it objectively reasonable (based on undisputed
-
E.D. Michigan September 30, 2024 No. 2:22-cv-12531Not cited
The R&R did not address this argument or line of cases because it did not reach the clearly-established prong of the qualified immunity analysis.
Likewise, it is important to reach and analyze the clearly-established prong of Roush’s qualified immunity defense.
The court recognized that its prior “reluctance to dismiss cases on qualified immunity might have more vitality in the clearly established context . . . because the clearly established inquiry may turn on case- specific details
-
2 F. Supp. 2d 1268 C.D. California May 15, 1998 No. CV-97-2098-WJR (EX)
(2) Was such right clearly established at the time of the alleged offense? (3) If there is a clearly established right, is the issue of qualified immunity [ ] properly addressed in a motion for summary judgment?
Under the two-part test, there'is qualified immunity if: (1) the law governing the official’s conduct was “clearly established;” and (2) under that “clearly established” law, a reasonable officer could have believed that his conduct
Accordingly, Salahuddin stands for the proposition that if the order is unclear there is no “clearly established law” for purposes of qualified immunity. Id.
-
880 F. Supp. 319 E.D. Pennsylvania December 5, 1994 No. 2:93-cv-04250
not clearly established); Landstrom, 892 F.2d. at 676 (defendants entitled to qualified immunity *330 because plaintiffs cite no cases indicating what clearly established rights have been violated); Hidahl v.
immunity because no clearly established rights existed); Doe v.
established, and is not entitled to qualified immunity).
-
900 F. Supp. 2d 499 M.D. Pennsylvania October 16, 2012 No. 1:10-CV-02382
Defendant Dillon is entitled to Qualified Immunity because it is not clearly established that failing to hold a pre-ejection hearing [for Adamo] is a deprivation of Due Process. 15.
Defendant Dillon is entitled to Qualified Immunity because it is not clearly established that failing to hold a pre-ejection hearing [for Gill] is a deprivation of due process. 23.
The privilege of qualified immunity, however, can be overcome when state officials violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”
-
548 F. Supp. 2d 1215 D. Kansas April 28, 2008 No. 07-3016-KHV
If plaintiffs allegations sufficiently allege the deprivation of a clearly established constitutional right, qualified immunity will not protect defendants. I.
For purposes of qualified immunity, a clearly established right is one which is supported by a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision on point, or the weight of authority from other courts. See Eidson v.
Because plaintiff has not alleged a clearly established violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Hadl, Hofer and Riggs are entitled to qualified immunity on that claim. B.
-
D. New Jersey September 2, 2026 No. 3:24-cv-09054Not cited
QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Defendants next argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate a clearly established right. (Motion at 7–12.)
Defendants do not argue under the first qualified immunity prong 6 Defendants make no argument for qualified immunity specifically addressed to Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment claim and, as stated, expressly concede a clearly established
Defendants rely on the clearly established prong as the basis for their assertion of qualified immunity.
-
119 F. Supp. 2d 346 S.D. New York September 26, 2000 No. 99 Civ. 9052(VM)
Qualified immunity applies to the discretionary functions of state officials if their *355 conduct does not violate “clearly established” statutory or constitutional rights of which “a reasonable person would have known.”
Due Process Violation Defendants argue that (1) work release is not a valid liberty interest; (2) even if it could be construed as a liberty interest, it is not clearly established, and would thus warrant qualified immunity (and
See discussion supra; Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 (allowing qualified immunity if defendant “does not violate clearly established” rights of which “a reasonable person would have known”).
-
S.D. Ohio October 5, 2021 No. 1:18-cv-00093Not cited
In other words, plaintiffs must articulate why the asserted constitutional rights count as “clearly established,” or else qualified immunity bars those claims.
once again waived the clearly-established prong of qualified immunity with respect to that claim.
Although McDougald waived the clearly- established law prong of qualified immunity with respect to this issue only once, rather than twice as with his other claims, once is enough.
-
W.D. Wisconsin March 21, 2022 No. 3:21-cv-00217Not cited
FMLA individual capacity claims Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity from suit unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. Pearson v.
Rather, they argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because it is not clearly established that public agency supervisors could be sued under the statute. See Dkt. 23 at 23–24.
Defendants don’t dispute that the actions Tamayo alleges violate her clearly established right to take FMLA leave, so they are not entitled to qualified immunity on that ground.
-
D. New Mexico December 6, 2021 No. 1:21-cv-00133Not cited
Whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity turns on whether his conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable official would have been aware.
Rickard, 572 U.S. 765, 778 (2014) (reaffirming that officials acting in discretionary capacities are generally entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct violates clearly established law).
Therefore, qualified immunity depends on the objective reasonableness of the official’s conduct. Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 .
-
726 F. Supp. 1305 S.D. Florida December 15, 1989 No. 88-2402-CIV
For instance, if the plaintiff’s allegations do not state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.
of clearly established law. 13 Accordingly, the case proceeded to *1309 trial with the qualified immunity issue unaddressed and hence unresolved.
In fact, in the context of a summary judgment motion based on qualified immunity, a court must actually decide two questions of law: (1) what was the law at the time of the incident and was it clearly established?
-
252 F. Supp. 2d 1286 D. Wyoming March 21, 2003 No. 2:98-cv-00201
Qualified Immunity. Qualified immunity protects federal officials from individual liability unless the officials violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known.
A federal employee is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct was objectively reasonable in light of the clearly established rights at issue.
Plaintiff contends that these rights are clearly established and therefore Defendants are not entitled to qualified .immunity. (Pl.’s Br. in Opp’n, at pp. 46-48).
-
38 F. Supp. 3d 721 E.D. Virginia August 5, 2014 No. Civil Case No. 3:14cv009
As to Saunders, however, qualified immunity could still protect her from suit.
“A school official searching a student is ‘entitled to qualified immunity where clearly established law does not show that the search violated the Fourth Amendment.’ ” Id. at 377 , 129 S.Ct. 2633 (quoting Pearson v.
“[W]here no reasonable officer could believe he was acting in accordance with [a clearly established constitutional right], qualified immunity will not attach.” Pinder v. Johnson, 54 F.3d 1169, 1173 (4th Cir.1995).
-
329 F. Supp. 2d 905 E.D. Michigan July 26, 2004 No. 02-10160-BC
The defendant claims that he is entitled to a dismissal on the basis of qualified immunity because the undisputed facts do not demonstrate a violation of the plaintiffs clearly established Eighth Amendment rights.
The affirmative defense of qualified immunity shields “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate ‘clearly established’ statutory or constitutional
clearly established constitutional rights.
-
154 F. Supp. 2d 1069 E.D. Michigan July 24, 2001 No. CIV. 00-40183
A negative answer to this question would end the inquiry in favor of finding qualified immunity for the defendant; an affirmative answer would require the Court to address the second and final issue: whether the right was clearly established
If the Court were to decide that the right allegedly violated was not clearly established, the doctrine of qualified immunity would shield the defendant from suit.
The Court’s conclusion that the right was clearly established, conversely, would mean that qualified immunity is no obstacle to a continuation of the suit.
-
W.D. Pennsylvania July 15, 2021 No. 3:10-cv-00264Not cited
established and denying qualified immunity.
Further, the Motion addresses the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis as to Mack’s RFRA claim, whether the right was clearly established.
When considering qualified immunity, “[t]he dispositive question is whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established.”
-
216 F. Supp. 3d 590 W.D. Pennsylvania October 25, 2016 No. 15-1183
Our Court of Appeals’ decisions in Ray and Vargas do not address a clearly established right in this context. In Ray, our Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s finding of qualified immunity for officers who entered Mr.
Citizens have a clearly established right to be free from excessive force while restrained. 57 In light of this clearly established right, district courts tend to deny qualified immunity in cases where the reasonableness of the force
Conclusion We are not aware of a clearly established right for a citizen not to be restrained while suffering a grand mal seizure. We apply qualified immunity to Mr. Guthrie’s Fourth Amendment seizure claim.
-
749 F. Supp. 997 W.D. Missouri October 11, 1990 No. 88-4348-CV-C-9Not cited
Thus, the threshold question in determining whether defendants in this case are entitled to qualified immunity is whether their conduct violated *1000 a “clearly established” constitutional right.
Defendants argue that because there was no “clearly established” constitutional right to a parent-child relationship at the time of Mark’s death, they are entitled to qualified immunity.
This right was clearly established at the time of Mark’s death. Whether Mark’s parents had a clearly established right to sue is irrelevant to the qualified immunity determination. Furthermore, defendants’ argument is illogical.
Showing the top 500 cases. Narrow your search or add filters to see more.