Case law

Zion v. Nassan

727 F. Supp. 2d 388 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 23, 2010

The next step in the qualified immunity analysis requires the court to “consider whether the right was clearly established.” McKee v. … . *403 The court of appeals concluded “that a plaintiff has no obligation to plead a violation of clearly established law in order to avoid dismissal on qualified immunity grounds.” Id.

Harmon v. Dallas County

248 F. Supp. 3d 814 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 31, 2017

immunity (Doc. 26) and the order denying that motion (Doc. 29) and concludes that nature of the challenged conduct was not clearly established in the specific context of this case. … immunity because, at *823 the time Howell was fired, it was not clearly established whether his involvement in the FBI investigation was protected under the First Amendment.”

Doe v. Rector & Visitors of George Mason University

132 F. Supp. 3d 712 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Sep 16, 2015

is that government officials sued in their personal capacities for violations of federal rights are entitled to qualified immunity if the right was not clearly established at the time of the violation. … It is equally clear, of course, that a “materially similar” set of facts is not necessary to establish law clearly for qualified immunity purposes. See Hope v.

Curro v. Watson

884 F. Supp. 708 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 28, 1995

If the law at the time of the alleged violation was clearly established, the defense of qualified immunity generally will fail, since a reasonably competent official should know the law governing his or her conduct. … Indeed, a violation of clearly established law will defeat qualified immunity. See Davis, 468 U.S. at 197 , 104 5. Ct. at 3020-21.

Trafton v. City of Woodbury

799 F. Supp. 2d 417 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 29, 2011

Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. 12 Montanez, 603 F.3d at 250 . … See id. at 823 (finding that because the unlawfulness of the officers’ conduct was not clearly established, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity, without having to answer the question of whether the officers violated

Clark v. Ware

873 F. Supp. 2d 1117 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Jun 4, 2012

Qualified immunity Both Johnson and Ware raise the issue of qualified immunity. … immunity was still appropriate, however, because the law was not clearly established)).

Monetti v. City of Seattle

875 F. Supp. 2d 1221 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 21, 2012

Qualified Immunity Analysis Qualified immunity shields public officials from civil damages for the performance of their discretionary functions. … Even if the constitutional rights of the plaintiff were violated, unless the right is clearly established, the officer is entitled to qualified immunity. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

Toney v. Harrod

372 F. Supp. 3d 1156 · District Court, D. Kansas · Mar 13, 2019

was clearly established at the time of the defendant's unlawful conduct." 15 Therefore, "[t]o survive a motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity, the plaintiff must allege sufficient facts that show-when taken as true-the … Clearly Established Law Under the second prong of the qualified immunity test, Sullivan is entitled *1165 to immunity unless his alleged actions violated a clearly established right.

David v. Mosley

915 F. Supp. 776 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Feb 16, 1996

Mosley’s Claim Of Qualified Immunity: Counts I, II And IY Mosley seeks summary judgment on Counts I, II and IV, on the theory that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Baker, 825 F.2d 772, 774 (4th Cir.1987). 8 This is because “... there are two levels on which the immunity shield operates. First, the particular right must be clearly established in the law.

Tripp v. Department of Defense

173 F. Supp. 2d 58 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 30, 2001

Defendants Did Not Violate Clearly Established Law Most executive officials are immune from suits alleging constitutional and statutory violations unless they violate “clearly established” statutory or constitutional rights … In discussing the qualified immunity standard, those courts have focused primarily on the question of a violation of clearly established law. See, e.g., Anderson v.

Peltier v. Sacks

328 F. Supp. 3d 1170 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 16, 2018

was not clearly established. 4 Under the qualified immunity doctrine, "government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate … A two-part test resolves claims of qualified immunity by determining whether plaintiffs have alleged facts that "make out a violation of a constitutional right," and if so, whether the "right at issue was 'clearly established

Gressley v. Deutsch

890 F. Supp. 1474 · District Court, D. Wyoming · Oct 5, 1994

and law to establish that the defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity. … immunity and do more than identify, in the abstract, a clearly established right.

Payne v. County of Humboldt

655 F. Supp. 1341 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 18, 1987

In other words, defendants who act pursuant to their official duties may still be liable under section 1983 if they act unreasonably or in violation of clearly established laws. … To deny him qualified immunity protection unless he goes further and demonstrates that his actions were above the benchmark of legal good faith, would make the concept of qualified immunity a meaningless embellishment.

Roberts v. Source for Public Data

606 F. Supp. 2d 1042 · District Court, W.D. Missouri · Dec 1, 2008

“Clearly-established” rights are at issue in determining qualified immunity. See discussion of Qualified Immunity, infra. … Qualified Immunity Finally, Davis argues that Plaintiffs’ DPPA claim against him is barred by qualified immunity.

Marriott v. USD 204, Bonner Springs-Edwardsville

289 F. Supp. 3d 1235 · District Court, D. Kansas · Sep 8, 2017

Defendants further claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity because it is not clearly established that video recording in a public classroom is a violation of constitutional rights. … A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff can show "(1) a reasonable jury could find facts supporting a violation of a constitutional right, which (2) was clearly established at the time of the defendant's

Staneart v. Board of Trustees of Ransom Memorial Hospital

684 F. Supp. 1573 · District Court, D. Kansas · Apr 18, 1988

Staneart responds that qualified immunity is inapplicable because clearly established law proscribed the defendants’ conduct. As stated above, the court will consider this motion as a motion for summary judgment. … If the plaintiff fails to convince the court that the law was clearly established, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity and judgment must be entered in his favor. Burk v.

Doll v. Pennsylvania State Police

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 18, 2025

Doll responds that Trooper Tremaine’s conduct violates clearly established law and thus Trooper Tremaine’s actions cannot be protected by qualified immunity. (Doc. 36, at 12-15). … “In light of a clearly established right, district courts tend to deny qualified immunity when the reasonableness of the force used is factually disputed.” Guthrie v. Guthrie, 216 F. Supp. 3d 590, 596 (W.D.

Baker v. Clearwater County

District Court, D. Idaho · Jan 3, 2022

An officer sued under Section 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity from suit, unless the officer’s conduct 1) violated a constitutional right, and 2) that constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the … Thus, both of the officers are entitled to qualified immunity on the Section 1983 claims brought against them individually.

Pitt v. District of Columbia

558 F. Supp. 2d 11 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 2, 2008

In engaging in a qualified immunity analysis, the Court “must determine whether a constitutional right has been violated before moving to the analysis of whether a right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the defendant … Accordingly, Detective Bovino is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

C.B. v. Sonora School District

691 F. Supp. 2d 1170 · District Court, E.D. California · Mar 8, 2010

Qualified Immunity. Defendants move to dismiss the Eighth Cause' of Action on the ground that the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for damages under Section 1983. … Qualified immunity serves to shield 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