Case law

ESTATE OF FRANCES D. DEROSA v. MURPHY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 21, 2025

. ¶¶ 79, 80, 94.)2 On May 12, 2023, Judge Quraishi granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that because no clearly established right was violated, defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. … “Officials demonstrate they are entitled to qualified immunity only if they can show that a reasonable person in their position at the relevant time could have believed, in light of clearly established law, that their conduct

ZISA v. HAVILAND

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 31, 2020

Haviland does not address whether his alleged constitutional harm violated a clearly established right. “[T]he burden of pleading a qualified immunity defense rests with the defendant.” Thomas v. … App’x 373, 378-79 (3d Cir. 2004) (“To the extent the Supervisory Defendants fail to address the issue [of whether a right was clearly established], therefore, their claim for qualified immunity fails ipso facto.”).

KIRBY v. BOROUGH OF WOODCLIFF LAKE

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 20, 2024

To overcome qualified immunity Plaintiff must establish “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” … Because there are no material facts in dispute that support that Plaintiff’s clearly established rights were violated, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Kounelis v. Sherrer

529 F. Supp. 2d 503 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 3, 2008

Thus, having found that the alleged facts established the violation of a constitutional right and that the constitutional right was clearly established, the Court denied qualified immunity to Sergeants James and Perez. … established at the time of the alleged violation, the Court has limited its qualified immunity analysis to Kounelis's excessive force claim. 12 .

BERK v. HOLLINGSWORTH

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 23, 2020

Because Plaintiff has not stated a claim of a violation of his federal rights, Defendants are also entitled to qualified immunity. See Reichle v. … was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.”).

YAH 'TORAH v. EMRICH

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 28, 2022

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 … There is a two-step inquiry into whether qualified immunity applies: (1) whether the official’s conduct violated a constitutional or federal right; and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established.

MORAN v. HAWTHORNE POLICE DEPARTMENT

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 18, 2025

The Officer Defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity. However, those arguments presently “rest on what are currently contested factual averments.” Velardo v. … City of Elizabeth, 436 F. 3d 397, 405 (3d Cir. 2006) (“Although qualified immunity is a question of law determined by the Court, when qualified immunity depends on disputed issues of fact, those issues must be determined

OKWUEGO v. CORREIA

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 7, 2024

But even if this were addressed, it is not clear that the Plaintiff could get over the qualified immunity hurdle here. … (1) violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.”)

JACOBS v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 4, 2019

Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (“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 … Insomuch as the CO Defendants would like to invoke the doctrine of qualified immunity because their purported after-the-fact conspiratorial actions did not violate a then-clearly established constitutional right, that attempt

SUMMERVILLE v. NEW JERSEY STATE TROOPERS JOHN DOES 1-10

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 8, 2022

Gregory was entitled to qualified immunity for the initial stop, while holding that DSFC Ciano was entitled to qualified immunity. … The second prong of qualified immunity asks whether the right at issue was so clearly established that the officer should have known that he or she was committing a constitutional violation under the circumstances.

JONES v. United States

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 26, 2024

Step One of the Qualified Immunity Doctrine and Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Needs The two-prong test for qualified immunity considers whether the facts … Qualified immunity protects a government official from civil liability and suit “insofar as [his] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

EIVICH v. EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 12, 2025

Beyond reciting the standard for qualified immunity and reiterating their argument as to why the excessive force should be dismissed, defendants do not expressly argue how or why Robostello is entitled to qualified immunity … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (“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

Ingram v. Township of Deptford

858 F. Supp. 2d 386 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 13, 2012

deprivation violated clearly established law. … was clearly established.

SERVAIS v. CACCIA

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 31, 2023

Second, the Court considers “whether that right was clearly established at the time of the official’s actions.” Id. “An answer in the negative to either prong entitles an officer to qualified immunity.” … See Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232 (stating that qualified immunity applies unless “the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of defendant's alleged misconduct” (emphasis added)).

PHILLIPS v. NEW JERSEY TRANSIT

District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 14, 2022

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from personal liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Pa. 2001) (“[T]he right to be free from the fabrication of evidence, falsifying documents, and malicious prosecution is clearly established.”).

Rouse v. Plantier

997 F. Supp. 575 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 9, 1998

The level of generality at which the right asserted must be “clearly established” is the key conceptual issue in many qualified immunity cases, and has been clearly articulated by Plaintiffs, see Plaintiffs’ Letter-Brief … right to adequate medical care was “clearly established.”

Tormasi v. Lanigan

363 F. Supp. 3d 525 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 28, 2019

could clearly establish a right for purposes of qualified immunity." *538 Mammaro v. … clearly established right to circumcision."

Grohs v. Yatauro

984 F. Supp. 2d 273 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 20, 2013

The qualified immunity analysis Qualified immunity protects government officials such as Defendants Yatauro and Lanigan from liability for damages as long as their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or … Whether the Complaint alleges a constitutional violation that is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity Grohs’ claim that inadequate hot water at the STU impaired the safety and well-being of its residents

Mitchell v. Township of Willingboro Municipality Government

913 F. Supp. 2d 62 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 28, 2012

The Third Circuit has clearly held that “qualified immunity will be upheld on a 12(b)(6) motion only when the immunity is established on the face of the complaint.” Thomas v. … Defendant Perez does not argue that Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment rights in this case were not clearly established. Consequently, the Plaintiffs complaint satisfies the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Janowski v. City of North Wildwood

259 F. Supp. 3d 113 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 5, 2017

“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 … ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.”).