Case law

Allah v. Brown

351 F. Supp. 2d 278 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 26, 2004

Qualified Immunity Even if a plaintiff can establish a constitutional violation, under the doctrine of qualified immunity government officials will not be liable if “[tjheir conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … If the law is not established clearly when an official acts, he is entitled to qualified immunity because he “could not reasonably be expected to anticipate subsequent legal developments.”

Palma v. Atlantic County

53 F. Supp. 2d 743 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 15, 1999

Qualified immunity “shield[s officers] 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.” … [to] determine whether [D]efendant[s][are] entitled to qualified immunity on the grounds that [their] conduct did ‘not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

COWAN v. SCHARFENBERG

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 4, 2025

Div. 2024). 20 Defendants argue that qualified immunity also bars Plaintiffs’ malicious prosecution claim. … Evanson, 615 F.3d 197, 223 (3d Cir. 2010) (stating that the defendant bears “[t]he burden of establishing entitlement to qualified immunity”). 28 future event . . .

Ference v. Township of Hamilton

538 F. Supp. 2d 785 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 6, 2008

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.” Wright v. … “To be clearly established for pur *799 poses of the qualified immunity analysis, the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear such that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right

Anela v. City of Wildwood

595 F. Supp. 511 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 7, 1984

The defendant next argues that immunity law developed in the § 1983 context entitles him to a qualified immunity. This argument, the court believes, has some merit. … It is difficult to say that this constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the events in question.

James v. Price

602 F. Supp. 843 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 21, 1985

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), a government official performing a discretionary function is shielded by qualified immunity unless his actions violated “clearly established statutory or … Operating on the assumption that the right to be free from malicious prosecution was not a clearly established right, we found that the *846 state officers in this case were entitled to rely on the qualified immunity defense

Jordan v. New Jersey Department of Corrections

881 F. Supp. 947 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 31, 1995

The court also determined, however, that the prison guard was entitled to qualified immunity because the prisoner’s legal right was not “clearly established” at the time the action was taken. … established” to strip defendant Fowler of qualified immunity.

Garlanger v. Verbeke

223 F. Supp. 2d 596 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 27, 2002

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials “from suits seeking damages under § 1983 ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … In determining whether a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity, both the existence of a clearly established right and the objective reasonableness of the officer’s actions are questions of law for the Court to

Waste Conversion, Inc. v. Sims

868 F. Supp. 643 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 15, 1994

The court also found that the right to a prompt post-deprivation right was “clearly established,” and thus defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity. (Id. at 7). … Finally, even if defendants did violate plaintiffs’ due process rights, these rights were not “clearly established,” and thus defendants are not liable under the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Conde v. City of Atl. City

293 F. Supp. 3d 493 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 5, 2017

The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that "government officials performing discretionary functions ... are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Proceeding with the qualified immunity analysis regarding Officer Smith's use of deadly force, the Court finds that Mack's right to be free from excessive, deadly force was clearly established on the night of the shooting

Brandt v. Monte

626 F. Supp. 2d 469 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 29, 2009

Clearly Established Violation Having found that Plaintiff has alleged a constitutional violation, the Court now turns to the second step of the qualified immunity analysis, namely, whether the right violated was clearly established … whether the rights violated were clearly established.

Franklin Building Corp. v. City of Ocean City

946 F. Supp. 1161 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 18, 1996

qualified immunity. … “clearly established”_ In instances of violations which are not clearly established, a showing of improper motive will not defeat a qualified immunity claim. Grant, 98 F.3d at 125 n. 6. This is one such case.

Jones v. Dalton

867 F. Supp. 2d 572 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 3, 2012

First, “[t]he threshold inquiry a court must undertake in a qualified immunity analysis is whether plaintiffs allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation.” Hope v. … immunity analysis has been satisfied. 10 Furthermore, there can be little doubt that the right to be free from searches and seizures not based on probable cause or a recognized exception was clearly established.

Biase v. Kaplan

852 F. Supp. 268 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 9, 1994

In order to defeat an assertion of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant official violated a “clearly established” right held by the plaintiff. … action is a violation) violates a clearly established right.

Ramirez v. United States

81 F. Supp. 2d 532 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 4, 2000

“Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim for violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal.” Mitchell v. … contrary to established law that they are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Morales v. Busbee

972 F. Supp. 254 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 20, 1997

The qualified immunity doctrine provides that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as then-conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … The Third Circuit has recently made clear that “to defeat qualified immunity it is not sufficient that the right at issue be clearly established as a general matter.

Kovats v. Rutgers

633 F. Supp. 1469 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 24, 1986

The Third Circuit recently reviewed the ambiguities of Harlow’s “clearly established” requirement. In People of Three Mile Island v. … The state of the law was therefore clearly established at the time of plaintiffs’ termination. Defendants should have related Perry and Roth to the instant situation. Hicks v.

Diaz v. Bullock

268 F. Supp. 3d 640 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 3, 2017

The basis for the Court’s finding as' to qualified immunity is that to the extent there is a constitutional right at issue, it is not clearly established. … As a result, and at a minimum, the Officer Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutional right is not clearly established.

Calloway v. Boro of Glassboro Department of Police

89 F. Supp. 2d 543 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 8, 2000

It is well-established that under the doctrine of qualified immunity: Government officials performing discretionary functions are “shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as then-conduct does not violate clearly … Under the circumstances of this case, I find that the law at the time of the allegedly discriminatory conduct was not clearly established and therefore, Best, Massari, and Powell are entitled to qualified immunity. c. § 1983

Mantz v. Chain

239 F. Supp. 2d 486 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 30, 2002

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY FROM LIABILITY UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983 In moving for summary judgment of Mantz’s civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , Defendants invoke the doctrine of qualified immunity. … In determining whether a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity, both the existence of a clearly established right and the objective reasonableness of the officer’s actions are questions of law for the Court to