Case law

Ayeni Ex Rel. Ayeni v. CBS Inc.

848 F. Supp. 362 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 7, 1994

Qualified Immunity of Agent Mottola. … Qualified Immunity of CBS and Jor-gensen. Both CBS and Jorgensen claim qualified immunity.

Cucuta v. New York City

25 F. Supp. 3d 400 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 3, 2014

(see cases cited at page 414 above), defendants alternatively are entitled to the protection of qualified immunity because the law is not clearly established and their actions were objectively reasonable. … The Officers are Entitled to Quali-fíed Immunity for the Ping of Cucuta’s Cell Phone Defendants also are entitled to qualified immunity for the pinging of Cueuta’s cell phone because the law is not clearly established and

Achterhof v. Selvaggio

757 F. Supp. 837 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Feb 27, 1991

In searching for clearly established constitutional rights for qualified immunity purposes, a district court ... must find binding precedent by the Supreme Court, its court of appeals or itself. … In an extraordinary case, it may be possible for the decisions of other courts to clearly establish a principle of law.

Wilson v. Wright

998 F. Supp. 650 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Mar 19, 1998

Prison officials performing discretionary functions enjoy qualified immunity if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”' … Thus, in determining whether a state actor is entitled to qualified immunity, a court “must (1) identify the right allegedly violated, (2) determine whether the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of

Doe Ex Rel. Doe v. Rains Independent School District

865 F. Supp. 375 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Sep 30, 1994

Under the shield of qualified immunity, White cannot be held liable unless Doe’s constitutional rights and White’s duty with respect to those rights were clearly established when the events giving rise to the instant action … Unless White’s duty under this test was clearly established at the time of the events giving rise to this lawsuit, White is entitled to the shield of qualified immunity. See Spann v.

McKay v. City of Hayward

949 F. Supp. 2d 971 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 11, 2013

In the absence of clearly established law, Officers Cox, Purnell, and Miller are entitled to qualified immunity from plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim. … Parks, 383 F.3d 1058, 1071 (9th Cir.2004) (denying qualified immunity to officers who failed to intervene where law clearly established use of force was excessive).

Donovan v. Briggs

250 F. Supp. 2d 242 · District Court, W.D. New York · Feb 26, 2003

Qualified immunity shields public officials “from civil damages liability insofar as their conduct 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,’ Harlow … was not clearly established in the context of the actions giving rise to the suit); Warlick v.

Fifield v. Eaton

669 F. Supp. 2d 294 · District Court, W.D. New York · Oct 20, 2009

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages where their performance of their discretionary duties does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … that it would not violate clearly established rights.

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.’ ”).

McAdoo v. Texas

565 F. Supp. 2d 733 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Sep 27, 2005

“A public official performing a discretionary function enjoys qualified immunity in a civil action, provided the conduct alleged did not violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … “In addressing a claim of qualified immunity, a court must first determine whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, which is a purely legal question.” Id.

Lefemine v. Davis

732 F. Supp. 2d 614 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Jul 8, 2010

Qualified Immunity a. … Individual Capacity Defendants allege that they are entitled to qualified immunity because there was no clearly established law indicating that their conduct would violate Plaintiffs constitutional rights. (Defs. Mem.

Mangual v. Toledo

536 F. Supp. 2d 127 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Feb 15, 2008

Qualiñed Immunity Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ Section 1983 claims are barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Public officials are therefore entitled to qualified immunity unless the facts establish that their conduct violated a constitutional right that was “clearly established” at the time of the violation such that a reasonable

Berrios-Cintron v. Cordero

976 F. Supp. 110 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 27, 1997

Whether qualified immunity will protect an official from being held personally liable will depend on the ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ … Cohalan in further analysis of the qualified immunity issue.

Kaylor v. Rankin

356 F. Supp. 2d 839 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 4, 2005

Qualified Immunity: Federal Law Qualified immunity protects “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Rankin and Radde contend they are entitled to qualified immunity because they violated no clearly established constitutional right of which they were or reasonably should have been aware.

Corcoran v. Fletcher

160 F. Supp. 2d 1085 · District Court, C.D. California · Jul 26, 2001

Determining whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity, then, “requires a two-part inquiry: (1) Was the law governing the state official’s conduct clearly established? … Clearly Established Law “[W]hether the law was clearly established ... is a pure question of law for the court to decide.” Mendoza v. Block, 27 F.3d 1357, 1360 (9th Cir.1994).

Rustgi v. Board of County Commissioners of County of Weld, Colorado

District Court, D. Colorado · Apr 29, 2021

Because Rustgi possessed a clearly established constitutional right and has alleged a constitutional violation by Sheriff Reams, dismissal is inappropriate on qualified immunity grounds. See Keith v. … was clearly established.

Cutino v. Untch

79 F. Supp. 3d 1305 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jan 14, 2015

Qualified Immunity Standards Qualified immunity “offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … In this respect, qualified immunity “ ‘gives government officials breathing room to make reasonable but mistaken judgments.’ ” Carroll v.

Archer v. Chisholm

188 F. Supp. 3d 866 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · May 26, 2016

She is entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the plaintiff plausibly pleads that she violated a constitutional right, and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … Qualified immunity—validity of warrant Turning to qualified immunity, again, to overcome qualified immunity the plaintiff must plausibly allege that the defendants violated a constitutional right, and that the right was clearly

Price v. Kelly

847 F. Supp. 163 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 24, 1994

The Supreme Court established the current qualified immunity analysis in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). … As discussed, the second half of the two-part qualified immunity analysis focuses on whether or not the constitutional rights were clearly established at the time of the violation, such that defendants knew or should have

Finley v. Trent

955 F. Supp. 642 · District Court, N.D. West Virginia · Feb 28, 1997

The Court finds that the right to prompt medical attention for a serious medical need was clearly established in 1994. … Summary judgment based upon qualified immunity is inappropriate “where what actually happened ... need[s] to be resolved by the trier of fact in order to reach a decision on the applicability of qualified immunity.”