Case law

Gordon v. Cargor

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Aug 7, 2025

right underlying his claim is “clearly established”); Mosier v. … Evans, 90 F.4th 541, 546 (6th Cir. 2024) (explaining that for purposes of qualified immunity, a plaintiff may not identify a “clearly established” right at a high level of generality).

Santana v. Cook County Board of Review

700 F. Supp. 2d 1023 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 30, 2010

Commissioners and Board Employees also claim qualified immunity, which shields officials from damages liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … To defeat such asserted qualified immunity a plaintiff must show 6 both (1) the violation of a constitutional right and (2) that the right was “clearly established at the time of the defendant’s misconduct” (concepts that

Rooks v. Santiago

District Court, D. Connecticut · Jun 1, 2021

Moreover, qualified immunity “protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages in so far as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Leonard, 282 F.3d 123, 134 (2d Cir. 2002) (qualified immunity requires showing that official violated clearly established law).

Covell Ex Rel. Johnson v. County of Oswego

165 F. Supp. 2d 241 · District Court, N.D. New York · Sep 5, 2001

of the qualified immunity standard. … established prong” of the qualified immunity standard.

Steen v. City of Pensacola

809 F. Supp. 2d 1342 · District Court, N.D. Florida · Aug 22, 2011

Qualified Immunity “The qualified immunity defense ‘shields government agents from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … I will simply assume arguendo that there was a constitutional violation and proceed to the second step of the qualified immunity analysis. 2. Was the right “clearly established” at the time of the violation?

Aisenberg v. Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office

325 F. Supp. 2d 1366 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 16, 2004

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects a prosecutor’s discretionary acts that violate no “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … See Gonzalez, 325 F.3d at 1233-34 (qualified immunity requires dismissal of an action if the complaint “fails to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right”).

Vosburgh v. Bourassa

2008 DNH 133 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Aug 5, 2008

So, where this type of constitutional violation is established there is no room for qualified immunity. … Malicious and sadistic use of force is always in violation of clearly established law, so qualified immunity affords no protections to defendants 20  in Eighth Amendment excessive

Cowboys for Life v. Sampson

983 F. Supp. 2d 1362 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Oct 21, 2013

The doctrine of qualified immunity is well established. … immunity because the plaintiffs “right to be free from a retaliatory investigation [was] not clearly established.”

V.S. ex rel. T.S. v. Muhammad

581 F. Supp. 2d 365 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 30, 2008

The claim of qualified immunity on all federal claims Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … If the case were limited to these facts, the City defendants would seem to have a strong case for qualified immunity under the clearly established and clearly deferential standard of the Second Circuit.

Jackson v. Gilday

District Court, D. South Carolina · Jul 11, 2025

established” and Defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity. 2. … In the absence of clearly established authority recognizing the specific rights asserted by Plaintiff, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. I.

Hixon v. Durbin

560 F. Supp. 654 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 1983

Unfortunately, in announcing the new test for qualified immunity in Harlow , the Supreme Court expressly declined to define what criteria a rule of law would have to meet in order to be deemed “clearly established.” … Presumably, every principle of law which is essential to the conclusion that the defendant violated plaintiff’s rights must be “clearly established” for the qualified immunity defense to fail.

Mariano v. Borough of Dickson City

40 F. Supp. 3d 411 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 22, 2014

“A right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes where its contours are sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” Id. … They do not indicate what exactly they believe is not “clearly established” in law such that qualified immunity is appropriate, but simply assert that the doctrine applies.

Tempel v. School District of Waukesha

District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Dec 20, 2023

of clearly established law.” … Dismissal based on qualified immunity is not appropriate at this juncture. Tempel’s complaint alleges a violation of a constitutional right and this right was clearly established at the time of Defendants’ actions.

Abella v. Simon

831 F. Supp. 2d 1316 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Nov 28, 2011

Therefore, the burden shifts to Abella to demonstrate that Simon violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right to overcome the qualified immunity defense. … Therefore, the burden again shifts to Plaintiff to demonstrate that Defendants violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right to overcome the qualified immunity defense.

Cowles v. Peterson

344 F. Supp. 2d 472 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Oct 21, 2004

Qualified immunity provides that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded *478 from liability for civil damages 'insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, and must be plead by the respondent. See Gomez v.

Lumpkin v. Brehm

230 F. Supp. 3d 178 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 27, 2017

And “[a]n officer is entitled to qualified immunity ... if he can establish that he had ‘arguable probable cause’ to arrest the plaintiff,” which requires the officer to demonstrate “either (a) it was objectively reasonable … And because Defendants have raised qualified immunity in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, they must demonstrate that facts establishing arguable probable cause are “clear from the face of the [SAC].” Rahman v.

Hall v. Griego

896 F. Supp. 1043 · District Court, D. Colorado · Aug 10, 1995

Qualified immunity shields defendants from pecuniary liability unless they can be said to have violated "`clearly established' constitutional or statutory norms." Werner, 49 F.3d at 1481 (citing Anderson v. … Supreme Court addressed the issue of what is clearly established law for the purpose of qualified immunity, stating: the right the official is alleged to have violated must have been `clearly established' in a more particularized

Quinlan v. City of Seattle

District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 27, 2024

. § 1983 because the officers should have done more to find and notify him about the impoundment would be 15 precluded by qualified immunity jurisprudence. See Hope v. … Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 739 (2002) (an individual defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if the 16 constitutional right allegedly violated was not “clearly established” at the time of the events at

Fisher v. Kealoha

869 F. Supp. 2d 1203 · District Court, D. Hawaii · Apr 19, 2012

Qualified Immunity for Individual Capacity Claims Kealoha also asserts that he is shielded from individual liability based upon qualified immunity. … violation, and ... whether or not the right was clearly established at the time of the violation.”

Lonegan v. Hasty

436 F. Supp. 2d 419 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 22, 2006

Accordingly, Hasty’s entitlement to qualified immunity depends on whether those rights were clearly established at the time of the alleged violations. 5 See Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 . … Qualiñed Immunity To determine whether Hasty is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claims, the court must now consider whether plaintiffs’ rights were clearly established at the time