Case law

Jackson v. Hamm

78 F. Supp. 2d 1233 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Dec 27, 1999

However, this holding does not end the qualified-immunity inquiry. As stated above, a constitutional right must not only exist, it must have been clearly established at the time of the violation. … Moreover, even if such right were violated, the right was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Upshaw is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. IV.

Kelleher v. New York State Trooper Fearon

90 F. Supp. 2d 354 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 23, 2000

Where the plaintiff alleges the violation of a clearly established right — as was the case here — qualified immunity protects a police officer from civil liability lor violating a plaintiffs constitutional rights only if … Trooper Fearon would have been entitled to qualified immunity if, at the time of the challenged action, it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that his behavior did not violate the plaintiffs clearly established

Evans v. Headley

566 F. Supp. 1133 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 22, 1983

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2737-40 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (eliminating subjective part of test for qualified immunity in Bivens actions, Bivens v. … Under these circumstances, it would be difficult to find the defendants had “violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Garcia v. Scoppetta

289 F. Supp. 2d 343 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 6, 2003

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … “A defendant pleading qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss is entitled to prevail if the allegations in the complaint fail to ‘state a claim of violation of clearly established law.’ ” McEvoy v.

Schiller, Victoria v. State of Wisconsin

District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Jan 26, 2024

But Reiff is likely entitled to qualified immunity on this relatively novel claim. See, e.g., Fosnight v. … Jones, 41 F.4th 916, 924 (7th Cir. 2022) (government officials entitled to qualified immunity unless constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the violation). 3.

Rockette

District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Mar 13, 2026

To rebut a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff must have “alleged a violation of a constitutional right and whether the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the alleged violation.” Cope v. … Sheehan, 575 U.S. 600, 613 (2015) (“Qualified immunity is no immunity at all if clearly established law can simply be defined as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.”).

Halcomb v. Woods

767 F. Supp. 2d 123 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 3, 2011

Woods’ conduct to be in accordance with clearly established law, see Halcomb v. … He consequently has failed to show that he is entitled to qualified immunity. V.

Koser v. County of Price

834 F. Supp. 305 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Oct 7, 1993

OPINION Qualified immunity I begin with defendants’ contention that the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because their arrests of plaintiff did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional … I conclude that it is necessary to reserve a ruling on the issue of qualified immunity until after trial.

Berkley Specialty Insurance Company v. Masterforce Construction Corp.

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 26, 2021

judgment on the pleadings.27 Berkley asserts that it is entitled to judgment in its favor as, for five reasons, it owed no duty to indemnify Masterforce.28 First, Berkley contends that Masterforce’s conduct does not qualify … Galloway, 483 F.3d 258, 271 (4th Cir. 2007) (noting that, under the qualified immunity standard, a constitutional right is not clearly established when there are “conflicting decisions” in that area); Soares v.

SIMS EX REL. SIMS v. Glover

84 F. Supp. 2d 1273 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Dec 9, 1999

Second, Defendants contend that, because Sims has not alleged deprivations of clearly established constitutional rights, they are immune from suit under the well-established doctrine of qualified immunity. (Mem. at 3.) … Similarly, “[u]nder the qualified immunity defense, the defendants are immune from liability if [Sims’ Amended Complaint] fails to state a violation of a ‘clearly established ... constitutional right[ ] of which a reasonable

Todero v. Blackwell

383 F. Supp. 3d 826 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 28, 2019

Because Officer *833 Blackwell relies on qualified immunity and the parties focus on whether his actions violated clearly established law, the Court exercises its discretion to begin with that prong of the qualified-immunity … Todero and (2) are regardless entitled to qualified immunity because they violated no clearly established right. Dkt. 116 at 19, 25. Ms.

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.

DeRosa v. Bell

24 F. Supp. 2d 252 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Aug 31, 1998

A party is entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds if the court finds that the rights asserted by the plaintiff were not clearly established or: no reasonable jury, looking at the evidence in the light … While the right to due process is clearly established under the fourteenth amendment, the issue of qualified immunity cannot be resolved at such a high level of generality. See Anderson v.

Asten v. City of Boulder

652 F. Supp. 2d 1188 · District Court, D. Colorado · Aug 26, 2009

Qualified Immunity Officers Compton and Frenzen assert a qualified immunity defense to Ms. Asten’s claims against them individually. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Bond v. Nikki

District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Dec 6, 2021

court next must decide whether the plaintiff has raised claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … Counseling Ctr., 987 F.2d 397, 408-09 (7th Cir. 1993) (discussing relevant case law in context of assessing whether law was clearly established for qualified-immunity purposes)).

Smith v. Ciesielski

975 F. Supp. 2d 930 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 30, 2013

In particular, the statute provides officials qualified immunity for “[t]he performance of a discretionary function.” Ind.Code § 34-13-3-3(7). … As with common law qualified immunity under Section 1983, an official’s conduct does not merit exemption from suit if it “violate[s] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person should

Theron v. Board of County Commissioners

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Sep 26, 2024

“Qualified immunity protects 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 known.” … Bednar, 407 F.3d 1081, 1087 (10th Cir. 2005) (“[The defendant] violated clearly established law, and thus is not entitled to qualified immunity, if he terminated [the plaintiff] for exercising her free speech rights.”).

Whiteru v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

258 F. Supp. 3d 175 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 7, 2017

WMATA’s first argument—that there is no statute, regulation, or policy on point—is clearly unavailing. … rely on “SSOP 46 alone” to establish this standard.

Brautigam v. Fraley

684 F. Supp. 2d 589 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 4, 2010

and official immunity and remain immune from suit except as the General Assembly shall specifically waive the immunity. … The court specifically distinguished the immunity for an employee of the Commonwealth versus the immunity conferred by statute upon the employee of a municipality: We note that the immunity defense provided by the General

Elkins v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 27, 2009

seizure was clearly established). … Thus, they do not assert qualified immunity. Instead, some of the Individual Defendants contend that they were not personally involved in the seizure. -17- Messrs.