Case law

Orozco v. County of Yolo

814 F. Supp. 885 · District Court, E.D. California · Feb 24, 1993

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct did not violate plaintiffs’ clearly established statutory or constitutional rights or if the officers could reasonably have believed that their conduct was lawful … Alternatively, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if they prove that a reasonable officer possessing the same information could have believed that the conduct at issue was reasonable in light of the clearly established

Anders v. Cuevas

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Oct 8, 2019

They did not argue that Plaintiffs failed to establish a constitutional violation or that Sollars did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. See Rondigo, L.L.C. v. … that violated clearly established law.’”).

Patterson v. Oakes

District Court, E.D. Texas · Mar 30, 2023

immunity without first addressing whether the violation of the right alleged was clearly established. … In their qualified immunity argument, Defendants assert that Plaintiff has not set out a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Kuhl v. Fields

District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Feb 11, 2025

Kuhl continued to display difficulty speaking clearly and was visibly unsteady. (Doc. # 77- 5 at 39:40-41:25). Mr. … Appx. 481, 482 (6th Cir. 2009) (defendants entitled to qualified immunity because “at the time of the events [], an intoxicated detainee had no clearly established constitutional right to a hospital evaluation in the absence

Woodward v. Weber County

District Court, D. Utah · Mar 27, 2024

QUALIFIED-IMMUNITY ANALYSIS: CLEARLY ESTABLISHED PRONG Due to Defendant's assertion of a qualified-immunity defense, Plaintiff is burdened with showing that Defendant Sampson transgressed his clearly established … Qualified-Immunity Summary Plaintiff has not carried his burden under the second prong of his qualified-immunity requirements in that he has not shown clearly established law supports his constitutional

Worley v. Ewing

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Aug 12, 2020

established right to overcome qualified immunity, purpose rather than knowledge is required...”). … Because Worley’s Amended Complaint fails to state a plausible violation of any clearly established constitutional right by these defendants, I FIND that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Worley’s claims against

Rappa v. Hollins

991 F. Supp. 367 · District Court, D. Delaware · Dec 30, 1997

Standard of Review for Qualified Immunity 3 In Harlow v. … The dissenting judge on the issue of qualified immunity argued that the line of harassment cases did clearly establish such harassment was unlawful and that the policy-based termination line of cases did not apply.

Villalta Canales v. Caw

District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 3, 2020

The burden of establishing the qualified immunity defense rests on the party seeking to invoke it. Id. … Haines, 45 F.3d 790, 798 (4th Cir. 1995) (“[A] court reviewing a qualified immunity defense should assess … whether the alleged conduct violated law clearly established at the time the conduct occurred.”)

Sydney Williams v. Jamie L. Bramblett, in her individual capacity, Glenn Curry, in his individual capacity, Angela Kramp, in her individual capacity, Camelot Care Centers, LLC, Erin Helmholz, and Kathy Henke

District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jan 5, 2026

Qualified Immunity “[Qlualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … immunity because the alleged constitutional violation will rarely ~ if ever-- be clearly established”).

Wigginton v. The University of Mississippi

District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Mar 10, 2021

Examining the defense of qualified immunity requires a determination as to whether Defendants’ conduct violated “clearly established law.” … Berliner, 770 F.3d 196, 205 (2d Cir. 2014) (“Few issues related to qualified immunity have caused more ink to be spilled than whether a particular right has been clearly established.”).

Stickley v. SUTHERLY

667 F. Supp. 2d 664 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Oct 30, 2009

Alternative *667 ly, Sutherly and Fauber maintain that they have qualified immunity because they did not violate clearly established federal law, and the Town maintains that neither Suth-erly nor Fauber had the final policymaking … “Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from personal-capacity liability for civil damages under § 1983, insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Mockeridge v. Harvey

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Feb 7, 2024

established Supreme Court and Sixth Circuit precedent to divest these Government Official Defendants of qualified immunity. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232–36 (2009) (affirming the two prongs of qualified immunity—a violation of the constitution and clearly established law—but allowing courts to analyze these prongs in whichever order they choose

Deppe v. Sovinski

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

[may] be specific enough to establish clearly the law applicable to particular conduct and circumstances to overcome qualified immunity, even in the total absence of case[]law.” … of qualified immunity.”); Dolihite v.

Hoffschneider v. Marshall

District Court, D. Colorado · Apr 14, 2023

See also Cummings, 913 F.3d at 1242 (declining to “reach the first prong of the qualified-immunity analysis” where the plaintiffs “failed to identify clearly- established law” as required under the second qualified immunity … Hoffschneider has failed to meet his burden on the “clearly established” qualified immunity prong, and therefore Defendants Marshall and Pound are entitled to qualified immunity on Mr.

McLean v. Mississippi State University

District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Jul 14, 2020

Thomas, 843 F.3d 172, 177 (Sth Cir. 2016) (“Qualified immunity protects officers from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.”) (quoting Mace y. … Qualified immunity calls for a bifurcated test in which the court must first determine (1) “whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established

Robinson v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

858 F. Supp. 2d 33 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 1, 2012

because plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case of negligence. … Only discretionary activity is protected by sovereign immunity. Id.

Patterson v. United States of America

999 F. Supp. 2d 300 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 19, 2013

The Qualified Immunity Doctrine At the motion to dismiss stage, a plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to establish that the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. See Bloem, 920 F. … immunity grounds, because the relevant right is not “clearly established” or otherwise, cannot be accepted.

Loughlin v. Tweed

310 F.R.D. 323 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Oct 1, 2015

Tweed contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Tweed responds that he is entitled to qualified immunity because his conduct was not objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law at the time.

Culberson v. Clay County

District Court, N.D. Mississippi · May 10, 2023

Clifton, 29 F.3d 1012 (5th Cir. 1994) (holding that law enforcement officers are entitled to qualified immunity “unless it is shown that, at the time of the incident, [the officer] violated a clearly established constitutional … Villarreal, 628 F.3d 209, 211-12 (5th Cir. 2010) (“the plaintiff has the burden to rebut this [qualified immunity] defense by establishing that the official’s allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law”

Gill v. United States of America

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 21, 2019

The manner in which courts are permitted to resolve qualified-immunity defenses protects from unnecessary constitutional conjecture: “[C]ourts may grant qualified immunity on the ground that a purported right was not ‘clearly … To begin, the named Marshals are clearly entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutional questions in this case fall well short of being “clearly established.”