Case law

Ryan v. Burlington County, NJ

708 F. Supp. 623 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 6, 1989

Qualified Immunity The defense of qualified immunity serves to insulate a governmental official from liability in civil damages when the discretionary conduct of that official “does not violate clearly established statutory … In determining whether caselaw evidenced a clearly established right, courts are to examine the state of the law as of the time of the challenged conduct rather than the time at which the qualified immunity defense is raised

Calloway v. Fauver

544 F. Supp. 584 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 2, 1982

This was not a clearly established constitutional right during the periods relevant to this case. … Robinson, supra, can be said to create clearly established constitutional rights which would strip defendants of their qualified immunity.

Skevofilax v. Quigley

586 F. Supp. 532 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 2, 1984

clearly established. … Montgomery County, 573 F.Supp. 604, 610 (D.Md.1983) (law re: strip searching of pretrial detainees was not clearly established prior to Fourth Circuit decision, was clearly established after that decision; qualified immunity

JACKMON

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

Defendants contend they are entitled to qualified immunity because no law clearly established that designating NOGE a STG violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. (See id.) … 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.

THE ESTATE OF RICHARD BARD v. THE CITY OF VINELAND

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 22, 2021

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of … New Jersey State Police, 957 F.3d 165, 171–74 (3d Cir. 2020) (assessing the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis and reversing district court’s denial of

STILE v. HOLLINGSWORTH

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 29, 2021

assuming Plaintiff’s allegations to be true and determining whether the claim was supported by clearly established law. … Ed. 2d 463 (2017) (explaining that clearly established law, for purposes of qualified immunity, must make apparent the unlawfulness of the conduct that violates the Constitution).

Fuchilla v. Prockop

682 F. Supp. 247 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 13, 1987

If the law prohibiting the official act was clearly established then “a reasonably competent public official” should have known of it and the qualified immunity defense “should ordinarily fail” unless the official claims … If, however, the law was not clearly established, the defendant will be immune unless the plaintiff can show that the defendant actually knew that he was violating the law.

BARGE v. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 31, 2025

Stated more generally: once the defendants have started things off by raising qualified immunity, who has to come forward and show what the “clearly established” law actually is? … If he does not come forward with sufficiently on-point indications that the relevant law is “clearly established,” then the defendant gets qualified immunity. See Davis v.

ORTIZ v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY FREEHOLDERS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 24, 2024

Yost, 63 F.4th 211, 228 (3d Cir. 2023) (a § 1983 defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if the right at issue was not clearly established at the time it was allegedly violated) (citation omitted). … Broad general propositions in precedential cases, without sufficient factual context, do not clearly establish a constitutional right for purposes of qualified immunity. Id. (citing Mullenix v.

SCANLON v. LAWSON

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 29, 2020

Thus, Plaintiff has not established a constitutional violation for failure to protect and the Court need not proceed to the qualified immunity analysis. … Therefore, even if deliberate indifference could be established on this record, Defendants Balicki and Surrency, in their individual capacities, would be entitled to qualified immunity.

PRATT v. ANN KLEIN FORENSIC CENTER

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 18, 2019

established right.” … App’x 142, 144 (3d Cir. 2006) (“Because there is a genuine issue of fact as to whether [defendant] was deliberately indifferent, he has not carried his burden to establish that he is entitled to qualified immunity.”); Carter

CORDERO v. KELLEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 20, 2023

Defendants contend they are entitled to qualified immunity because there is no law that clearly established that a prison cannot limit bulk religious mailings sent directly to an inmate through the prison mailroom … 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

DAVIS v. BURKE

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 7, 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 person would … 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.”).

WAGNER v. CITY OF NEWARK

District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 27, 2025

Defendant Henry puts forth that qualified immunity shields him from liability as Plaintiff has not pled facts demonstrating he violated a clearly established constitutional right. (D.E. 63-2 at 15.) … clearly established in light of the specific context of the case.”

BRASHER v. NEW JERSEY STATE PARK POLICE

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 30, 2025

Plaintiff also contends the Officer Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because their actions violated his clearly established rights. (Id. at 24–28.) … immunity because no facts demonstrate a violation of clearly established law.

WATERS v. SAEZ

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 15, 2020

Henry is also entitled to qualified immunity. See Reichle v. … that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.”).

LEE v. CLARK

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 1, 2025

That is not how qualified immunity works. Qualified immunity is determined on a claim-by-claim basis, See Behrens v. … Pa, 2018) (“It would be strange to say that right X is clearly established just because right Y is clearly established and happens to prohibitthe same conduct.”), On this basis alone, reconsideration is improper

KELLEY v. REYES

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 1, 2025

That is not how qualified immunity works. Qualified immunity is determined on a claim-by-claim basis, See Behrens v. … Pa, 2018) (“It would be strange to say that right X is clearly established just because right Y is clearly established and happens to prohibitthe same conduct.”), On this basis alone, reconsideration is improper

DEDURO v. THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

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

A court analyzing a defense of qualified immunity must determine both (1) whether the plaintiff has shown a violation of a constitutional right and, (2) whether the right was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged … However, even if Kane did create such notice, single out-of-circuit case is insufficient to clearly establish a right” for purposes of qualified immunity. Porter v. Pa.

GARCIA v. CITY OF PERTH AMBOY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 4, 2024

Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. … In other words, if the official’s conduct violated a clearly established right, qualified immunity does not apply. See id. “[C]ourts are free to address the two elements in whichever order they deem appropriate.”