Case law

Barham v. Ramsey

338 F. Supp. 2d 48 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 24, 2004

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY STANDARD “Qualified immunity shields officials from liability for damages so long as their actions were objectively reasonable, as measured in the light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established … This lack of clearly established law is relevant both to determining the “reasonableness” of an officer’s actions and whether the officer is entitled to qualified immunity.

Sanders v. District of Columbia

522 F. Supp. 2d 83 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 8, 2007

Qualified immunity “shields State officials from liability for their discretionary functions ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … step of the qualified immunity analysis.

Freeman v. Fallin

422 F. Supp. 2d 53 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 3, 2006

Qualified immunity “shield[s 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 known.” … contain hidden, and at the time unexpounded, constitutional roadblocks. 9 Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment right was not clearly established, Butera, 235 F.3d at 646 , and these defendants are entitled to qualified

Lachance v. Town of Charlton, Corp.

368 F. Supp. 3d 231 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 21, 2019

Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. The First Circuit has adopted a two-part test to assess qualified immunity. … Thus, because Defendants do not argue they are entitled to qualified immunity for the common law claims, this Court need not address the existence of state qualified immunity.

Halperin v. Kissinger

578 F. Supp. 231 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 13, 1984

The doctrine *234 of qualified immunity now focuses on whether a government official's conduct "violate[s] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … judgment based on qualified immunity.

Brodie v. Worthington

841 F. Supp. 2d 91 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 24, 2012

’s clearly established constitutional rights. … Qualified immunity “protects government officials in civil litigation arising from their official conduct ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Tripp v. Department of Defense

173 F. Supp. 2d 58 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 30, 2001

Defendants Did Not Violate Clearly Established Law Most executive officials are immune from suits alleging constitutional and statutory violations unless they violate “clearly established” statutory or constitutional rights … In discussing the qualified immunity standard, those courts have focused primarily on the question of a violation of clearly established law. See, e.g., Anderson v.

Halcomb v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

526 F. Supp. 2d 20 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 14, 2007

If so, the Court then must inquire whether the right allegedly violated was “clearly established” — that is, whether “ ‘the contours of the right [were] sufficiently clear that [an objectively] reasonable officer would understand … violated established law.

Pitt v. District of Columbia

558 F. Supp. 2d 11 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 2, 2008

In engaging in a qualified immunity analysis, the Court “must determine whether a constitutional right has been violated before moving to the analysis of whether a right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the defendant … Accordingly, Detective Bovino is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

Jackson v. Government of the District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 11, 2024

“Even if there is a genuine dispute about the reasonableness of an officer’s use of force, he is protected by qualified immunity unless his force violated clearly established law.” Hedgpeth v. … Officer Lombardini asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity. Def.’s Mot. at 14–15. Jackson contends that the officer violated clearly established law and is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Wesby v. District of Columbia

841 F. Supp. 2d 20 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 18, 2012

When determining whether a given constitutional right was “clearly established” for the purposes of establishing qualified immunity, “we look to cases from the Supreme Court and [the United States Court of Appeals … However, “[i]f the law was clearly established, the [qualified] immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.”

Hardy v. District of Columbia

601 F. Supp. 2d 182 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 6, 2009

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from [personal] liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … right,” and “whether *188 that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violations.”

Beg Investments, LLC v. Alberti

85 F. Supp. 3d 54 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 24, 2015

As a result, Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. Id. … In granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s RICO and underlying Hobbs Act claims, this Court explained that state actors are entitled to qualified immunity on RICO claims for “conduct that does not violate clearly

Boyd v. District of Columbia

526 F. Supp. 2d 44 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 26, 2007

Qualified immunity “shield[s officials] from liability for civil damages insofar as [the official’s] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Thus the right is not clearly established, and Robinson is entitled to qualified immunity from this claim. Accordingly, the court dismisses the plaintiffs’ constitutional claim.

Gudger v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 16, 2015

ANALYSIS Qualified immunity shields “government officials performing discretionary functions . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Gudger’s residence violated clearly established law.

Bernstein v. Roberts

405 F. Supp. 2d 34 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 20, 2005

The Court held that this principle was clearly established so as to preclude the granting of qualified immunity. … Obviously, the legal principles the Supreme Court held were "clearly established," in 1997 are equally clearly established for the qualified immunity analysis in this case. 5 .

Dickey v. United States of America

174 F. Supp. 3d 366 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2016

However, qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability where their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Defendants argue that “the true test for qualified immunity in this case was whether it was clearly established that Officer Alexander was prohibited from alleged touching or manipulating

Price v. Kelly

847 F. Supp. 163 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 24, 1994

The Supreme Court established the current qualified immunity analysis in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). … As discussed, the second half of the two-part qualified immunity analysis focuses on whether or not the constitutional rights were clearly established at the time of the violation, such that defendants knew or should have

Fellowship of Christian Athletes v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 3, 2026

in question . . . was clearly established.” … were clearly established.

Olaniyi v. District of Columbia

416 F. Supp. 2d 43 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 17, 2006

However, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity from suit “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … “The threshold inquiry a court must undertake in a qualified immunity analysis is whether [the] plaintiffs allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation.” Hope v.