Case law

Merring v. City of Carbondale, Pennsylvania

558 F. Supp. 2d 540 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 27, 2008

Qualified immunity does not apply where state officials violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Wright v. … If it was, the law regarding entry into a house to make an arrest is clearly established, and qualified immunity would not apply in the instant case.

Finch v. City of New York

591 F. Supp. 2d 349 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 19, 2008

This Court held, inter alia, that any right to a prompt administrative hearing was not clearly established, entitling the individual defendants to qualified immunity. 4 *354 B. … Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability if the officials’ conduct “ ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Ozga v. Elliot

150 F. Supp. 3d 178 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Dec 21, 2015

That is because a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity if “(1) his conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known, or (2) it was objectively … Ozga had no clearly established right not to be temporarily detained as he was in the police car, and it follows that none of the defendants acted objectively unreasonably.

Blount-Yeye

District Court, S.D. Florida · Nov 12, 2025

Plaintiff can show qualified immunity is not appropriate by establishing “(1) the defendants violated a constitutional right, and (2) this right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” … “Generally speaking, it is proper to grant a motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds when the complaint fails to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” Corbitt v.

Massaro v. Town of Trumbull

525 F. Supp. 2d 302 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Dec 13, 2007

Qualified immunity shields police officers acting in their official capacity from suits for damages ... unless their actions *307 violate clearly-established rights of which an objectively reasonable official would have known … The defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

Gant v. United States Probation Office

994 F. Supp. 729 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Feb 13, 1998

In contrast to absolute immunity, qualified immunity shields a government official from liability for civil monetary damages if the official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … First, the court finds that Gant has failed to allege the violation of a clearly" established right.

Shimomura v. Carlson

17 F. Supp. 3d 1120 · District Court, D. Colorado · Feb 14, 2014

Qualified Immunity. … Shimomura has met the first prong of the qualified immunity test by establishing that no probable cause existed to support the arrest. 2. Clearly Established Right.

Hollihan v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

159 F. Supp. 3d 502 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 20, 2016

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects a state actor who has committed constitutional violations if the plaintiffs rights were not clearly established when the indi *513 vidual acted. Pearson v. … The burden to establish qualified immunity rests with the defendant. Beers-Capitol, 256 F.3d at 142 n. 15.

Wilkinson v. Balsam

885 F. Supp. 651 · District Court, D. Vermont · Apr 17, 1995

Thus, as under federal qualified immunity, [g]ood faith exists where an official’s acts did not violate clearly established rights of which the official reasonably should have known. … For purposes of state law qualified immunity, however, the “clearly established rights” need not be federal constitutional or statutory rights, as required in the application of the federal qualified immunity defense; to

Dull v. West Manchester Township Police Department

604 F. Supp. 2d 739 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2009

Haines, and Bixler are entitled to qualified immunity. … To determine whether a police officer enjoys qualified immunity, the court must ascertain whether the officer violated “clearly established statutory or constitu *752 tional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Buford v. Holladay

133 F.R.D. 487 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Dec 18, 1990

Once a section 1983 plaintiff establishes that the law defining the allegedly violated right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, the qualified immunity defense will ordinarily fail, “since a reasonably … immunity if the right allegedly violated in this matter was clearly established at the time that the violation occurred.

Estate of Sorrells v. City of Dallas

192 F.R.D. 203 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Feb 25, 2000

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct does not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Mitchell, 105 S.Ct. at 2815 (“Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.

Alton v. Hopgood

994 F. Supp. 827 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Feb 18, 1998

Although the Fifth Circuit has clearly established a two-step inquiry for qualified immunity, confusion abounds in the case law and in the briefs submitted to this Court. … Although holding that qualified immunity shielded the defendant's from liability, at least one Court has held on similar facts that such rights are clearly established. See Nesmith Through Nesmith v.

A.M. ex rel. Youngers v. New Mexico Department of Health

65 F. Supp. 3d 1206 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Dec 5, 2014

established prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … Clearly Established Rights in the Qualified Immunity Analysis.

Stamm v. Cnty. of Cheyenne

326 F. Supp. 3d 832 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Jun 11, 2018

12 because there was no clearly established law to alert the officers that their allegedly unlawful searches would deprive Plaintiffs of their Fourth Amendment rights. 13 "To avoid qualified immunity, the asserted rights … For purposes of analyzing the individual Defendants' qualified immunity defense, the court finds this right to confidentiality was clearly established at the time of their alleged misconduct.

Chambers v. North Rockland Central School District

815 F. Supp. 2d 753 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 27, 2011

by qualified immunity.” … “[E]ven where the law is ‘clearly established’ and the scope of an official’s permissible conduct is ‘clearly defined,’ the qualified immunity defense also protects an official if it was ‘objectively reasonable’ for him at

Alto v. City of Chicago

863 F. Supp. 658 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 25, 1994

Qualified immunity will apply to an officer’s alleged misconduct unless (1) the plaintiffs constitutional rights were violated, and (2) these rights were “clearly established” at the time the alleged violation occurred. … Because the court could not find such actions clearly unreasonable under the circumstances, qualified immunity was appropriate. Id.

Notariano v. Tangipahoa Parish School Board

266 F. Supp. 3d 919 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Jul 17, 2017

allegations are sufficient, Plaintiff has failed to plead a violation of any clearly established constitutional right. … “[I]f the pleadings on their face show an unreasonable violation of a clearly established constitutional right, the defense of qualified immunity will not sustain a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).” 26 “[A] plaintiff

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.

LeSUEUR-RICHMOND SLATE CORP. v. FEHRER

752 F. Supp. 2d 713 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Nov 3, 2010

When evaluating a qualified immunity claim, the district court should generally first determine whether a right “would have been violated on the facts alleged; [and] ... second ... whether the right was clearly established … Qualified immunity shields government officials from suit unless they transgress rights that are “clearly established.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 200, 121 S.Ct. 2151 (2001).