Case law

Deputy v. City of Seymour

34 F. Supp. 3d 925 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 21, 2014

Under the circumstances presented here, the Court considers it most prudent to proceed to the second question regarding qualified immunity — whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the violation. … First, in the context of qualified immunity, the Seventh Circuit has emphasized “[i]mportantly, the right must be clearly established in a particularized sense, rather than in an abstract or general sense.”

Schifanelli v. Loveday

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2026

Qualified immunity “Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from suit under [Section] 1983 unless their conduct violates clearly established law.” Zorn v. Linton, No. 25-297, 2026 WL 795469, at *2 (U.S. … June 9, 2025) (denying a motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity in a case that did not involve a drug-sniffing dog because Rodriguez is clearly established law).

Carter v. Diamond URS Huntsville, LLC

175 F. Supp. 3d 711 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Mar 30, 2016

“The ‘clearly established’ standard does not mean that official’s conduct is protected by qualified immunity unless ‘the very action in question has previously been held unlawful.’” … The officer is “entitled to qualified immunity if his or her conduct was objectively reasonable in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time of his or her actions,” even if the conduct violated the

Campos v. Van Ness

52 F. Supp. 3d 240 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 29, 2014

The doctrine of qualified immunity is also not restricted to questions of established law. … Therefore, the questions relating to qualified immunity are whether Van Ness’ conduct violated rights of Martins or Campos that were “ ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct,” July 27, 2008, Plumhoff,

Borzilleri v. Mosby

189 F. Supp. 3d 551 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 31, 2016

Second, regarding the First Amendment claim, she argues that she is entitled to qualified immunity because she did not violate “clearly established law.” Pearson v. … Mosby argues first that Borzilleri fails to state a claim; and second, that-she is entitled to qualified immunity on her Frist Amendment claim because she did not violate “clearly established law.” a.

Harris v. Eichbaum

642 F. Supp. 1056 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 2, 1986

If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct____ By defining the limits of qualified immunity essentially … Forsyth that: “Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.

Barham v. Ramsey

338 F. Supp. 2d 48 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 24, 2004

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY STANDARD “Qualified immunity shields officials from liability for damages so long as their actions were objectively reasonable, as measured in the light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established … This lack of clearly established law is relevant both to determining the “reasonableness” of an officer’s actions and whether the officer is entitled to qualified immunity.

Hudson v. Maloney

326 F. Supp. 2d 206 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 23, 2004

Qualified immunity attaches to discretionary conduct of government officials that “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 528 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (officers immune unless their actions were “clearly proscribed” by established law).

Freeman v. Fallin

422 F. Supp. 2d 53 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 3, 2006

Qualified immunity “shield[s 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.” … contain hidden, and at the time unexpounded, constitutional roadblocks. 9 Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment right was not clearly established, Butera, 235 F.3d at 646 , and these defendants are entitled to qualified

Marley v. City of Allentown

774 F. Supp. 343 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 23, 1991

A government official asserting qualified immunity must establish that his conduct did “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … the legal rules that were ‘clearly established at the time it was taken.’”

Cocroft v. Smith

95 F. Supp. 3d 119 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 26, 2015

Whether Officer Smith Is Entitled To Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity protects public employees “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Officer Smith argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because the right to be free from a retaliatory arrest was not clearly established at the time.

Thomas v. Cannon

289 F. Supp. 3d 1182 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jan 30, 2018

DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR QUALIFIED IMMUNITY ...1213 A. Waiver...1213 1. Markert, Wiley, Cannon...1213 2. Zaro...1214 B. Constitutional Violation...1215 C. Clearly Established Law...1217 1. … The Court nonetheless affirmed qualified immunity for the officers because it recognized this rule was not clearly established in 1997 when the flash-bang was used. Id. at 784 .

Dunfee v. Finchum

132 F. Supp. 3d 968 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Sep 21, 2015

Qualified Immunity Officers Finchum and Cowan assert they are entitled to qualified immunity [Docs. 21, 30]. … Thus, plaintiff fails ■to meet the clearly established prong to defeat qualified immunity.

Barna v. Board of School Directors of the Panther Valley School District

143 F. Supp. 3d 205 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 6, 2015

The Defendants are Entitled to Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Qualified immunity attaches unless the official’s conduct violated such a clearly established right. Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987).

Mitchell v. Stewart

26 F. Supp. 3d 1322 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Jun 12, 2014

Plaintiffs thus “bear the burden of establishing that qualified immunity is not appropriate.” Id. … To lose qualified immunity, an officer must violate clearly established law. For a right to be clearly established, the constitutional question must be “beyond debate.” Stanton v.

Engesser v. Fox

District Court, D. South Dakota · Sep 23, 2019

Qualified immunity “Public officials are immune from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless they have violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at … Second, the court must “ask whether the right was clearly established.” Id. A negative outcome to either inquiry results in qualified immunity for the official. Pearson v.

Jackson Ex Rel. Jackson v. Nix

477 F. Supp. 2d 918 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Jan 23, 2007

Qualified immunity Defendants assert they are protected by qualified immunity against the claims brought against them by the minor Plaintiff. … The Motion will be DENIED IN PART on the issue of qualified immunity so that Plaintiff Keely Jackson may have an opportunity to plead, if she can, specific factual allegations underlying any clearly-established constitutional

Damron v. North Dakota Commissioner of Corrections

299 F. Supp. 2d 970 · District Court, D. North Dakota · Jan 26, 2004

The Eighth Circuit has instructed: Qualified immunity shields government actors from liability in civil lawsuits when “them conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … As our cases further establish, however, the question of qualified immunity requires more than a determination that a particular right is “clearly established” in the abstract.

Van Deelen v. City of Eudora, Kan.

53 F. Supp. 2d 1223 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jun 29, 1999

At the Rule 12(b)(6) stage, qualified immunity protects defendants performing discretionary functions from individual liability unless, on the face of the complaint, the plaintiff alleges the violation of “clearly established … that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”

Gruber v. Tennessee Tech Board of Trustees

District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Dec 1, 2022

Indeed, a number of circuits have found that constitutional rights requiring a particularized balancing test will rarely be “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes. … Second, Plaintiffs argue: Defendant also cannot establish the second element of her qualified immunity defense, because Plaintiffs’ rights were clearly established at the