Case law

Calhoun v. Buck

371 F. Supp. 3d 1008 · District Court, D. Utah · Apr 5, 2019

Qualified Immunity Trooper Buck asserts he is entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff's claims. … established right and therefore qualified immunity applies. a.

Boston v. Suffolk Cnty.

326 F. Supp. 3d 1 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 9, 2018

certainly circumstances where an intoxicated person's statement that he or she does not need medical treatment should not be honored because it is inconsistent with other objective facts indicating that hospitalization is clearly … Plaintiff introduced, through deposition testimony, that Rangers Sokol and Paterson had never received any training from Smithtown on how to identify drugs; how drugs affect people; how to deal with individuals who are clearly

Jiang v. Porter

156 F. Supp. 3d 996 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Dec 28, 2015

“[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 … Clarke, 45 F.3d 1253, 1255 (8th Cir.1995) (stating that qualified immunity “will be upheld on a 12(b)(6) motion only when the immunity is established on the face of the complaint”).

Oliver v. Dep't of Pub. Safety & Corr. Servs.

350 F. Supp. 3d 340 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 28, 2018

Qualified immunity shields *352 government officials from liability for civil damages as long as "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Because the plaintiff's right not to *353 be listed in the MSOR was not clearly established at the time the alleged violation occurred, qualified immunity insulates the individual defendants in this case from liability under

Wagner v. Loza

District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Dec 16, 2021

Accordingly, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for claims against them in their individual capacities. See, e.g., Williams v. … right was “clearly- established;” and (3) whether the official’s actions were objectively unreasonable).

Willis v. Blevins

957 F. Supp. 2d 690 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Jul 30, 2013

Determining whether qualified immunity applies entails a two-step inquiry: (1) “whether a constitutional right would have been violated on the facts alleged;” and (2) “whether the right was clearly established.” … Moreover, based on the discussion of Buckley and Kalina above, the right not to be deprived of one’s liberty by the fabrication of evidence is clearly established.

Brenden v. Castro

District Court, N.D. New York · Sep 26, 2025

Therefore, Castro is entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that individual defendants could be liable on a takings claim. See Novak v. … Castro is also not entitled to qualified immunity because it is clearly established that a false claim of lawful authority can invalidate consent. See id; Amos v.

HARAPAT v. Vigil

676 F. Supp. 2d 1250 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Oct 13, 2009

Clearly Established Law. … Qualified immunity shields state officials from liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Rosen v. City of New York

667 F. Supp. 2d 355 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 28, 2009

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages under federal claims insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … A government official is entitled to qualified immunity when “(1) Plaintiff fails to allege a violation of a federal right; (2) the right alleged was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation; or (3) the

Covert v. Kelley

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jan 27, 2023

were entitled to qualified immunity because the right at issue was not clearly established). … The Eighth Circuit has described the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity as follows: Qualified immunity shields a government official from suit

Von Stein v. Brescher

696 F. Supp. 606 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Oct 5, 1988

, their conduct violated “clearly established law.” … Scherer, 468 U.S. 183, 194-95 , 104 S.Ct. 3012, 3019-20 , 82 L.Ed.2d 139 (1984), any claim to qualified immunity would not be lost merely for the violation of the clearly established law embodied in that statute.

Watson v. City of Kansas City, Kan.

80 F. Supp. 2d 1175 · District Court, D. Kansas · Nov 8, 1999

“If the district court denies the defendant qualified immunity, the court should identify on the record the defendant’s conduct that violated clearly established law.” Mick v. … In arguing against qualified immunity, plaintiffs do not cite a single case which establishes that defendants’ conduct violated clearly established procedural due process rights.

Meek, Brandon v. Brock, Chase

District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Sep 26, 2023

Third, they argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … That made defendants’ continued use of force against him—including the taser— reasonable, or at least covered by qualified immunity.

Toth v. Bethel Township

268 F. Supp. 3d 725 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 24, 2017

“Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” White v. … Even where a plaintiff has shown the violation of constitutional rights, an individual defendant will still enjoy qualified immunity unless those rights were clearly established at the time- of -the violation.

Noonan v. Kane

305 F. Supp. 3d 587 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 2018

It determined that the defendant was entitled to qualified immunity since he did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. Id. at 572 . … established for the purpose of qualified immunity.

White v. Strafford County Department of Corrections

District Court, D. New Hampshire · Jul 17, 2020

Condon, 372 F.3d 39, 45 (1st Cir. 2004) (affirming the denial of qualified immunity where officers developed a witness for prosecution that they knew “would perjure himself … Coffey, 221 F.3d 342, 355 (2d Cir. 2000) (“It is firmly established that a constitutional right exists not to be deprived of liberty on the basis of false evidence fabricated by a government

Miller v. City of Philadelphia

954 F. Supp. 1056 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 29, 1997

Defendants further claim that Scheer has qualified immunity under § 1983 because he did not violate a clearly established constitutional right held by plaintiffs. i. … (holding standards for interviewing children that had allegedly been sexually abused not clearly established and defendants were entitled to qualified immunity), cer t. denied, 484 U.S. 828 , 108 S.Ct. 97 , 98 L.Ed.2d 58

Washington v. City of Cincinnati, Ohio

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 7, 2024

That is enough for the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … Luna, 577 U.S. 7, 12 (2015) (requiring cases proffered as factually analogous “to speak [] to the specific circumstances” at bar for the clearly established prong of qualified immunity).

Doe v. University of Mississippi

District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Mar 29, 2023

While Defendants’ briefing on qualified immunity is likewise limited, they squarely—and correctly— argued in their opening memorandum that “the plaintiff has the burden to establish that the alleged conduct violates clearly-established … Miss. 2019) (granting qualified immunity on due-process claims and noting “Doe does not cite a single case that would put these Defendants on notice that their conduct violated clearly established law”).

GROSSMAN v. PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 22, 2022

immunity. … Cir. 2012) (court conducting qualified immunity analysis looks to “(1) whether the facts alleged by the plaintiff show the violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time