Case law

Dean v. Earle

866 F. Supp. 336 · District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Oct 28, 1994

legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time the actions were taken. … Thus, Officer Ward did not violate Dean’s clearly established constitutional rights and is immune from monetary liability under § 1983.

Logan v. City of Pullman

392 F. Supp. 2d 1246 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Oct 4, 2005

The Supreme Court has established a two-part analysis for determining whether qualified immunity is appropriate in a suit against an officer. … In the absence of binding precedent, the Court looks to whatever law is available to ascertain whether the law is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes, including decisions of state courts, other circuits, and

Beg Investments, LLC v. Alberti

34 F. Supp. 3d 68 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2014

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials, who are sued in their individual capacity for money damages, for “conduct [that] does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … That is certainly the case here. 16  The Court thus turns to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis — whether it was clearly established, in June

Leisure v. City of Cincinnati

267 F. Supp. 2d 848 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 6, 2003

Qualified Immunity for Defendant Roach Qualified immunity is a doctrine that protects “government officials acting in their official capacities from damages if their actions did not violate clearly established statutory or … The second step in qualified immunity analysis is to ask whether the alleged constitutional violations were clearly established at the time of the shooting of Timothy Thomas.

Nichols v. Block

656 F. Supp. 1436 · District Court, D. Montana · Mar 5, 1987

This qualified immunity is in the nature of an affirmative *1441 defense and protects an official from liability only if he can show that his actions did not contravene clearly established constitutional rights of which a … Whether the officials may prevail in their defense of qualified immunity depends upon “the objective reasonableness of [their] conduct as measured by clearly established law.”

Kane v. Lewis

989 F. Supp. 2d 468 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 20, 2013

However, the principle itself — as well as its purposes to protect the safety of the officers and the occupants— could not be more clearly established. … Of course, as to plaintiff's state law claim, there is no qualified immunity at all. .

Shelley v. County of San Joaquin

954 F. Supp. 2d 999 · District Court, E.D. California · Jun 27, 2013

of qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of 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

Brinston v. Dunn

928 F. Supp. 669 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Apr 22, 1996

And finally, Dunn maintains that she is entitled to qualified immunity, in any event, since plaintiffs claimed First Amendment right was not- clearly established at the time his employment was terminated. … However, “[government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from suit unless their conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Johari v. City of Columbus Police Department

186 F. Supp. 2d 821 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 23, 2002

Where a defendant moves for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, the plaintiff first must “identify a clearly established right alleged to have been violated” and second, “establish that a reasonable officer in the … The burden then shifts “to the plaintiff to establish that the defendant[’]s conduct violated a right so clearly established that any official in the defendant[’]s position [ ] would have clearly understood that [he] w[as

Kurtz v. Denniston

872 F. Supp. 631 · District Court, N.D. Iowa · Dec 19, 1994

Delo, 999 F.2d 364, 366 (8th Cir.1993) (first step in qualified immunity analysis was determination of whether conduct violated any clearly established right). … special religious diet is clearly established.

Reynolds v. Smythe

418 F. Supp. 2d 724 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 9, 2006

The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has enunciated the qualified immunity inquiry as follows: “First, we must determine whether the defendants violated ‘clearly established’ rights. … Saucier instructs lower courts to examine whether a constitutional right was clearly established in the second-prong of a two-prong qualified immunity inquiry, whereas Harvey examines whether defendants violated a clearly

Cerrone v. Cahill

84 F. Supp. 2d 330 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jan 28, 2000

Standard for Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from suit for acts undertaken in the course of their duties if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … When a right is clearly established, qualified immunity also attaches “insofar as it was objectively reasonable to believe that [the government agent’s] acts did not violate these rights.” Calamia v.

Kelly v. Jones

148 F. Supp. 3d 395 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 24, 2015

The right in question was clearly established, such that qualified immunity is unwarranted. ‘ Defendants argue that Officer Jones is entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutional right allegedly violated was not … clearly established at the time Officer Jones acted.

Griffin, Jr. v. Garrison

2011 DNH 008 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Jan 13, 2011

Garrison is Entitled to Qualified Immunity. … A government official is entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability if the challenged “‘conduct [did] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Getlin v. Zoll

707 F. Supp. 2d 369 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 20, 2010

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of 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 … “Police officers generally enjoy a qualified immunity from liability for their discretionary actions if their conduct does not ‘violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known,’ or if it is

Hunsberger v. Wood

564 F. Supp. 2d 559 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Jul 3, 2008

immunity analysis and answers the question of whether the right was clearly established. … immunity, but private parties do not have qualified immunity.

Bash v. Patrick

608 F. Supp. 2d 1285 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Apr 9, 2009

Qualified Immunity: General Principles Qualified immunity protects government officers sued in their individual capacities from liability for civil damages so long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory … Case law need not arise out of factually identical situations to clearly establish law for purposes of the qualified immunity analysis. Id. at 1351 .

Harris v. Hammon

914 F. Supp. 2d 1026 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Dec 19, 2012

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … right was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.

MOLINELLI-FREYTES v. University of Puerto Rico

792 F. Supp. 2d 150 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Apr 5, 2010

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The “doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from [personal] liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … This is to say that the Court must find that “[p]ublic officials are ... entitled to qualified immunity unless the facts establish that their conduct violated a constitutional [or federal statutory] right that was clearly

Petro Rentals, Inc. et al. v. The City of Auburn, New York, et al.

District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 13, 2026

Related to § 1983’s “personal involvement” requirement is the affirma- tive defense of qualified immunity, which shields individual defendants from liability for damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001), to defeat qualified immunity a plaintiff show that (1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right; (2) that was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct.