Case law

Bell v. City of Cleveland

548 F. Supp. 2d 444 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 19, 2008

In other words, any “objectively reasonable” action by a state officer, as assessed in the light of clearly established law at the time of the conduct at issue, will be protected by qualified immunity. … and 2) that the right violated was clearly established.

Cummerlander v. Patriot Preparatory Academy Inc.

86 F. Supp. 3d 808 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 9, 2015

’ argument that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … In the context of school search and seizure, the Supreme Court in Safford set forth the standard for a clearly established law: A school official searching a student is entitled to qualified immunity where clearly established

Dunlap v. Hilgenkamp

82 F. Supp. 2d 1052 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Jan 25, 2000

. § 1983 for their performance of discretionary functions are entitled to a qualified immunity defense if they prove that their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Qualified immunity is a question of law.

Chalmers v. The City of Chicago

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 16, 2023

established so qualified immunity applies); Singleton v. … Qualified immunity also depends on the resolution of material facts.

Reynolds v. County of San Diego

224 F. Supp. 3d 1034 · District Court, S.D. California · Oct 3, 2016

Plaintiffs argue Defendant Bryson’s claim of qualified immunity should be defeated because she should have known that her actions violated the Plaintiffs’ clearly established rights. … In the Ninth Circuit, courts assess qualified immunity using a two-part analysis: “1) Was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established?

Barnes v. LAPORTE COUNTY

621 F. Supp. 2d 642 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 7, 2008

In determining whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, a plaintiff must first allege the deprivation of an actual constitutional right that is clearly established. Doyle v. … Shuter may or may not be entitled to qualified immunity, but Shuter has failed to adequately establish that qualified immunity exists as a basis for dismissal. 4 Shuter’s motion to dismiss is DENIED. [Doc. No. 18.].

Serra v. United States General Services Administration

664 F. Supp. 798 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 14, 1987

The standard is an objective one: “whether an official may prevail in his qualified immunity defense depends upon the ‘objective reasonableness of [his] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.’ … Thus, for Diamond and Ink to be stripped of their qualified immunity from suit, it must have been clearly established at the time they acted that Serra possessed a cognizable constitutional liberty or property interest in

Burbank v. Davis

227 F. Supp. 2d 176 · District Court, D. Maine · Oct 23, 2002

The second question is whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … Under the First Circuit’s three-part qualified immunity standard the “clearly established” element has two prongs: one, whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation and, two, whether a reasonable

Baillargeon v. Drug Enforcement Administration

707 F. Supp. 2d 305 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Apr 12, 2010

Ashcraft’s Objection In her objection, Ashcraft disputes Judge Almond’s conclusion as to the ‘clearly-established right’ prong of the qualified immunity test. … The Court explained: ‘Clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity means that the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that

Ruttenberg v. Jones

464 F. Supp. 2d 536 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Dec 13, 2006

Thus, a defendant’s entitlement to qualified immunity must be resolved “at the earliest possible stage in litigation.” Id. The Supreme Court has established a two-part qualified immunity inquiry. … Meeker, 415 F.3d at 320 ("Only if a plaintiff alleges the violation of a clearly established constitutional right does his complaint survive a motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds.”).

Tricoci v. Vidljinovic

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 13, 2025

This brings the Court to Defendants’ third argument: qualified immunity. … 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

Holdridge v. Blank

255 F. Supp. 3d 1088 · District Court, D. Colorado · Jun 1, 2017

Qualified Immunity Officer Blank asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity. See, e.g., ECF No. 78 at 10. … The qualified immunity doctrine “shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights-of

Raby v. Baptist Medical Center

21 F. Supp. 2d 1341 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Sep 9, 1998

An official is entitled to qualified immunity if he is performing discretionary functions and his actions do “‘not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Therefore, Mangum’s actions violated clearly established Eleventh Circuit precedent.

Kaufhold v. Bright

835 F. Supp. 294 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Sep 30, 1993

Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for money damages when their challenged conduct did not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known … To analyze a claim of qualified immunity, a court should: (1) identify the specific constitutional right implicated; (2) determine that the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation; and (3) consider

AerSale, Inc. v. The City of Roswell, New Mexico

District Court, D. New Mexico · Nov 25, 2024

However, this is precisely the “high level of generality” at which “clearly established” may not be defined for purposes of the qualified immunity analysis. … Christopher is entitled to qualified immunity on AerSale’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims based on the absence of clearly established law, it necessarily follows that he is also entitled to qualified immunity on

Braswell v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia

369 F. Supp. 2d 1371 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Apr 26, 2005

“Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or con *1377 stitutional rights of which a reasonable … This, however, does not end the inquiry with respect to the Defendants’ claim of qualified immunity. The doctrine of qualified immunity originated in Harlow v.

Harris v. Mack

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Sep 20, 2023

Purnell, 652 F.3d 524, 531 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (“Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their … a constitutional right and (2) ‘whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.’ ”).

Sonnino v. University of Kansas Hospital Authority

221 F.R.D. 661 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jun 22, 2004

Under these circumstances, the Court cannot conclude that its decision to overrule the Individual Hospital Defendants’ assertion of qualified immunity was clearly erroneous or that it resulted in manifest injustice to any … Conclusion With the exception of the Court’s ruling on whether the Hospital Defendants’ qualified immunity objections were substantially justified, the Hospital Defendants fail to show how the Court’s rulings were clearly

Alvarez Sepulveda v. Colon Matos

247 F. Supp. 2d 76 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Feb 24, 2003

“[S]tate officials exercising discretionary authority are entitled to qualified immunity insofar as their conduct does not transgress clearly established constitutional or federal statutory rights of which a reasonably prudent … “[S]tate officials exercising discretionary authority are entitled to qualified immunity insofar as their conduct does not transgress clearly established constitutional or federal statutory rights of which a reasonably prudent

Stovall v. McAtee

35 F. Supp. 2d 1125 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 24, 1997

In denying defendant’s qualified immunity motion, the district court concluded that Thomas v. Pate had clearly established the right at issue. This reliance was misplaced. As noted above, Thomas v. … When a defense of qualified immunity is raised, the plaintiff has the burden of showing that the right he invokes was “clearly established” at the relevant time with sufficient specificity under the circumstances.