Case law

Brown v. St. Landry Parish Sheriff's Dept

298 F. Supp. 3d 879 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Mar 21, 2018

, not only from suit, but 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." 31 Qualified immunity … The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was "clearly established" at the time of the violation.

Smith v. Kenny

678 F. Supp. 2d 1093 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Jul 24, 2009

to qualified immunity. … issue of qualified immunity.

Guite v. Wright

976 F. Supp. 866 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Sep 25, 1997

Claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Any individual government officials performing discretionary functions have a qualified immunity defense to a Section 1983 claim for damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … in the home, the entry violated clearly established law which a reasonable officer should have known.

Mutter v. Town of Salem

945 F. Supp. 402 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Nov 14, 1996

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The qualified immunity analysis in this circuit is two-pronged: (1) “the constitutional right asserted by the plaintiff [must be] clearly established at the time of the alleged violation,” and (2) “a reasonable official situated

Peelman v. Delaware Joint Vocational School District Board of Education

763 F. Supp. 268 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 3, 1991

Fitzgerald involved the application and scope of the qualified immunity of federal executive officials arising under federal law, some questioned the applicability of the Harlow decision to a defense of qualified immunity … Therefore, because the same facts which would establish the validity of the plaintiff’s claim under § 1983, would serve to deny the defendants the protection afforded by the doctrine of qualified immunity, the defendants

Foster v. McGrail

844 F. Supp. 16 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 25, 1994

In addition, even if plaintiff succeeded in proving a prima facie claim for a state constitutional violation, he failed to overcome defendant’s qualified immunity as established *25 under state law. … is claiming “have violated a right under Federal or State constitutional or statutory law that was ‘clearly established’ at the time.”

Williams v. Ontario County Sheriff's Department

662 F. Supp. 2d 321 · District Court, W.D. New York · Sep 21, 2009

Qualified immunity shields law enforcement officials who perform discretionary functions from liability if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable prison … to qualified immunity.

Bland v. Roberts

857 F. Supp. 2d 599 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Apr 24, 2012

Qualified Immunity 3 “Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages to the extent that ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … The Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.

Buchhorn v. Douglas County, Kansas, Board of Commissioners

District Court, D. Kansas · Jul 2, 2025

clearly established if a case exists that is factually identical. … than their prosecutorial duties, they are entitled to qualified immunity so long as their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

Burdeshaw v. Snell

350 F. Supp. 2d 944 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jun 4, 2004

Federal Claims and Qualified Immunity 1. General Principles Snell has pled the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. … Under the second prong, the court must determine whether the applicable law was clearly established at the time of the challenged action, that is, whether the defendant would have violated a clearly established right under

Retzlaff v. De La VINA

606 F. Supp. 2d 654 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Mar 4, 2009

Finally, defendants assert qualified immunity as a defense to Retzlaffs federal constitutional claims. Defendants have presented evidence that their actions were reasonable in light of clearly established law. Kinney v. … that defendants’ actions violated clearly established federal law.

Blankenship v. Warren County, Va.

918 F. Supp. 970 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Mar 19, 1996

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials who perform discretionary functions “from civil liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … “Under Harlow , therefore, the focus of an inquiry into a defendant’s qualified immunity is ordinarily the ‘objective reasonableness’ of the official’s discretionary conduct as measured by reference to clearly established

Losee v. Preece

District Court, D. Utah · Mar 30, 2022

In particular, Defendants contend the Court did not address the second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis, which is whether the unconstitutional conduct alleged was “clearly established.” (Id.) … Plaintiff counters that Defendants’ qualified-immunity argument is moot. (ECF No. 53, at 3.) Defendants are correct that the Court erred in not giving the clearly-established prong the required treatment.

Doe v. Marsh

918 F. Supp. 580 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 19, 1996

Finally, the court notes that qualified immunity protection turns on the “ ‘objective legal reasonableness’ ” of the allegedly unlawful official action “assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ … Accordingly, in this case the court cannot grant the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity predicated upon the lack of a clearly established constitutionally protected right.

Reed v. Sheppard

321 F. Supp. 3d 429 · District Court, W.D. New York · Aug 17, 2018

qualified immunity because, following the Supreme Court's 2006 decision in Samson , supra , it is not clearly established that some particularized suspicion is required before searching a parolee or his residence. … Because "[i]t is unclear whether the Second Circuit's decisions are consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Samson ," "the right is not 'clearly established' for qualified-immunity purposes." Id.

Emmanuel v. King County

District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 21, 2020

Homchick’s failure to identify a protected liberty or property interest or an abuse of process also entitles Defendants to qualified immunity. See Pearson v. … point to facts that support a violation of a clearly established constitutional right) 22 (discussing Saucier v.

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.

Green v. Henley

727 F. Supp. 582 · District Court, D. Kansas · Nov 13, 1989

immunity. … Accordingly, summary judgment in defendants’ favor on the basis of qualified immunity is appropriate as well.

Couser v. Somers

District Court, D. Kansas · Jul 1, 2019

Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694–95 (1978) (establishing standard under § 1983 for when a municipality may be held liable for the unconstitutional acts of its employee(s)). A. … Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 232 (1991) (“One of the purposes of immunity, absolute or qualified, is to spare a defendant not only unwarranted liability, but unwarranted demands customarily imposed upon those defending

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