Case law

Mitchell v. Parker

271 F. Supp. 3d 1364 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Sep 25, 2017

A plaintiff demonstrates that qualified immunity does not apply by showing “(1) the defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” … Dowling contends that there is an absence of evidence in the record to support this claim and therefore Dowling could not have violated a clearly established constitutional right and is entitled to qualified immunity.

Sanguinetti

District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 20, 2026

right was clearly established at the time of the misconduct. … This claim is barred by qualified immunity.

Yang v. City of Brooklyn Park

194 F. Supp. 3d 865 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Jul 6, 2016

Qualified immunity protects a police officer from personal liability in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action unless the officer’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right. Winslow v. … When a party moves for summary judgment on the ground of qualified .immunity, “ ‘[t]he party asserting immunity always has the burden to establish the relevant predicate facts, and at the summary judgment stage, the nonmoving

Simon v. City of New York

819 F. Supp. 2d 145 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 7, 2011

Absolute and Qualified Immunity 1. The Prosecutor’s Actions In Imbler v. … It is beyond dispute that individuals are protected by qualified immunity so long as “(1) their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights, or (2) [it] was objectively reasonable for them to believe

Pindell v. Wilson-McKee

60 F. Supp. 2d 1244 · District Court, D. Wyoming · Aug 17, 1999

IV The standard for consideration of a defendant’s claim of qualified immunity is as follows: Qualified immunity protects public officials from individual liability in a § 1983 action unless the officials violated “clearly … Once a defendant to a § 1983 action raises a qualified immunity defense, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show both facts and law to establish that the defendant is not entitled to a qualified immunity. Dixon v.

Negron v. City of New York

976 F. Supp. 2d 360 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 4, 2013

An assertion of qualified immunity requires a court to determine “(1) whether plaintiff has shown facts making out violation of a constitutional right; (2) if so, whether that right was clearly established; and (3) even if … Whether the Constitutional Right Violated Was Clearly Established Even if their actions are found to have constituted unreasonable or excessive force, Marchesona and Pigott would still be entitled to qualified immunity if

Brothers v. Monaco

363 F. Supp. 3d 1138 · District Court, D. Montana · Jan 28, 2019

Qualified immunity insulates public 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 known … Under § 1983, a law enforcement officer is entitled to qualified immunity unless: (1) the officer violated a constitutional right; and (2) that constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct

Fenwick v. United States of America

926 F. Supp. 2d 201 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 1, 2013

Fenwick’s clearly established rights. The Court therefore does not find the defendants entitled to qualified immunity at this juncture. 1. … Clearly Established Right With respect to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, it was clearly established at the time of this incident that shooting a fleeing suspect who is not presently

Morris v. Jackson

353 F. Supp. 2d 1199 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jan 10, 2005

However, qualified immunity does extend to this decision. … Qualified immunity protects § 1983 defendants from liability for injury arising from discretionary acts as long as the acts do not violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Dees v. Vendel

856 F. Supp. 1531 · District Court, D. Kansas · Sep 27, 1994

clearly established when the violation occurred.” … with clearly established law.

McCormick v. City of Lawrence

325 F. Supp. 2d 1191 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jun 24, 2004

Even if the court were to proceed to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, the court would determine that it is not clearly established that Plaintiffs were- engaging in protected speech. … See Camfield, 248 F.3d at 1228 (citing Tonkovich, 159 F.3d at 530 (holding that qualified immunity was proper when the plaintiff failed to cite any case law showing that the law was clearly established)).

Rodriguez-Cruz v. Trujillo

443 F. Supp. 2d 240 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 11, 2006

Immunity Lastly, defendant raises the qualified immunity defense. … Thus, “qualified immunity remains available to defendants who demonstrate that they acted objectively reasonably in applying clearly established law to the specific facts they faced.” Burke v.

Riebsame v. Prince

267 F. Supp. 2d 1225 · District Court, M.D. Florida · May 9, 2003

Deputy Prince is entitled to qualified immunity from Count III of Rieb-same’s complaint. Riebsame has not shown that Deputy Prince violated any clearly-established constitutional or statutory law. … Riebsame has not proved that Sheriff Williams violated any clearly-established constitutional or statutory right. No genuine issue of material fact remains as to Sheriff Williams’ qualified immunity. D.

Felker v. Christine

796 F. Supp. 135 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 22, 1992

In exploring whether a right is clearly established, we must find “some but not precise correspondence” with applicable precedents. People of Three Mile Island v. … protection program without notice to the father as father’s right to a hearing was clearly established when the child was placed in the program).

Auburn Medical Center, Inc. v. Peters

953 F. Supp. 1518 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Dec 12, 1996

as the plaintiff contends, because the Court finds that Smith is clearly immune from the plaintiffs RICO claim under the doctrine of qualified immunity. 5 Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary … The Hansen Court emphasized that the qualified immunity analysis is fact-specific: “When considering whether the law applicable to certain facts is clearly established, the facts of cases relied upon as precedent are important

Baptist v. O'LEARY

742 F. Supp. 975 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 11, 1990

Qualified Immunity No such trial will be necessary here, though, because defendants must prevail on their affirmative defense of qualified immunity. As Harlow v. … action is a violation) violates a clearly established right.

Miles v. Unified Sch. Dist. No. 500

347 F. Supp. 3d 626 · District Court, D. Kansas · Oct 16, 2018

Castillo is Not Entitled to Qualified Immunity Last, Ms. Castillo contends that she is entitled to qualified immunity. … A public official performing a discretionary function enjoys qualified immunity in a civil action for damages, provided her conduct does not violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights of which

Hummel v. City of Carlisle

229 F. Supp. 2d 839 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 23, 2002

established right, qualified immunity cannot attach on summary judgment. 882 F.2d at 215-16 . … The ultimate, more particularized question in the qualified immunity context is whether Hummel had a clearly established right under the facts as he states them. This case falls into the realm of Brandenburg .

White v. Franklin

637 F. Supp. 601 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · May 27, 1986

Qualified immunity is judged objectively by reference to clearly established law. Id. … Thus, if this court concludes that the individual defendants acting within their individual capacities violated such clearly established *616 constitutional or statutory rights, then qualified immunity does not bar this action

Williamson v. Cox

952 F. Supp. 2d 176 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 9, 2013

was clearly established at the time an action occurred. . . .’”). … The qualified immunity analysis “‘turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.’” Youngbey v.