Case law

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.

Domenech v. City of New York

927 F. Supp. 106 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 15, 1996

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, public officials are immune from liability for civil damages if they establish either that (1) their conduct did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person … Where reasonably competent officials could disagree as to whether the conduct at issue would violate clearly established rights, the immunity defense is available. Malley v.

Brinson v. McKeeman

992 F. Supp. 897 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Dec 31, 1997

on the lawfulness of the defendant’s actions, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity 47 Whether the conduct of which the plaintiff complains violated clearly established law is essentially a legal question. 48 In … a Section 1983 lawsuit, the relevant inquiry is whether the legal right which the plaintiff asserts was violated was clearly established under federal law. 49 Whether an official protected by qualified immunity may be held

Gooden v. Crain

405 F. Supp. 2d 714 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Dec 13, 2005

The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established rights which a reasonable person … of qualified immunity is available when the plaintiff is seeking damages.

Spinelli

District Court, D. Colorado · Oct 24, 2025

As Imbler and its progeny establish, absolute prosecutorial immunity is intended to protect the judicial process, not the prosecutor. See Briscoe v. … App'x at 705 (discerning no absolute immunity where prosecutors allegedly fabricated evidence “for the purpose of establishing probable cause”).

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.

Airday v. The City Of New York

District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 13, 2019

Qualified immunity shields a government official from money damages when his conduct did “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … A defendant has qualified immunity from a due-process claim when it was not clearly established at the time of the alleged deprivation that the purported property or liberty interest of which the plaintiff was deprived

Gehl Group v. Koby

838 F. Supp. 1409 · District Court, D. Colorado · Dec 2, 1993

Qualified immunity allows a public official to escape liability if his conduct did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Violation of Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment Bights Next, I must examine the second component of Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim to determine whether Defendants violated clearly established law precluding qualified immunity.

Morales v. City of North Las Vegas

272 F. Supp. 3d 1216 · District Court, D. Nevada · Jul 26, 2017

Qualified immunity protects law enforcement 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 … This argument, without more, would likely fail the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry because of the "longstanding principle that clearly established law should not be defined at a high level of generality ...

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.

Smith v. Nixon

582 F. Supp. 709 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 16, 1984

Sullivan and Cartha DeLoach: Qualified Immunity The remaining defendants move for summary judgment under the qualified immunity doctrine established in Harlow, supra. … of qualified immunity.

Marshall v. Russell

391 F. Supp. 3d 672 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Sep 20, 2018

Russell alleged he is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate any clearly established constitutional right. ECF No. 55 at 32-34. Sgt. … Qualified immunity.

Ruiz v. Texas Department of Protective & Regulatory Services

984 F. Supp. 2d 657 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Oct 28, 2013

However, as detailed below, that right is insufficient to sustain this action when juxtaposed against the qualified immunity “clearly established law” requirement. … immunity, based on a claim that the right to family integrity was not clearly established, will fail.

Richard

District Court, D. Connecticut · Dec 31, 2025

immunity. … Hollins, 297 F.3d 108, 113 n.1 (2d Cir. 2002) (Once a court “decide[s] that there is no constitutional violation, there typically is no need to address whether defendants are also protected by qualified immunity.”).

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

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

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.

Bradley v. West Chester University of the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education

226 F. Supp. 3d 435 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 8, 2017

Therefore, a plaintiff can only overcome the qualified immunity defense by showing “the officer’s conduct [to have] violated a constitutional right,” which right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation … In sum, we find that Mixner is entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs Section 1983 claim because, at the time it occurred, Mixner’s conduct did not violate a clearly established federal right. y.

Handy v. Fisher

District Court, D. Colorado · Apr 28, 2020

Because plaintiffs have met their burden on the first qualified immunity prong, I now consider their allegations that the law in question was clearly established. B. … Plaintiffs have asserted the violation was clearly established but do not provide independent argument on the qualified immunity prongs, perhaps because defendants did not address it in their motion.

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