Case law

Harnage

District Court, D. Connecticut · Jun 15, 2026

“Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly … “‘Even if the right was clearly established,’ a court can still find a suit blocked by qualified immunity where ‘it was objectively reasonable for the officer to believe the conduct at issue was lawful.’”

Berry v. Texas Woman's University

District Court, E.D. Texas · Mar 25, 2021

on qualified immunity[.]” … “[G]eneral propositions of law defined at ‘high levels of generality’ are insufficient to define clearly established law for purposes of defeating qualified immunity.” Perniciaro v.

Russell v. Butcher

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Jul 17, 2020

Barring a showing by Plaintiff that Defendants violated a “clearly established right or law” with respect to hiring, training, and developing procedures, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on claims involving … ” ; , 556 U.S. at 677 (“[i]n the context of determining whether there is a violation of a clearly established right to overcome qualified immunity, purpose rather than knowledge is required...”).

BARGE v. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 31, 2025

Stated more generally: once the defendants have started things off by raising qualified immunity, who has to come forward and show what the “clearly established” law actually is? … If he does not come forward with sufficiently on-point indications that the relevant law is “clearly established,” then the defendant gets qualified immunity. See Davis v.

Maxwell v. Outagamie County

District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Feb 6, 2023

But that articulation of the relevant clearly established principle is the sort of overly general statement that the Supreme Court has repeatedly found insufficient to overcome qualified immunity. … He was likewise entitled to qualified immunity with respect to his delay in calling for emergency medical help because existing caselaw did not clearly establish an obligation to call for medical help immediately.

Cosenza v. City of Worcester

355 F. Supp. 3d 81 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 2, 2019

Qualified Immunity Defendants similarly argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity from Plaintiff's malicious prosecution claims. … Defendants argue that the caselaw demonstrates Plaintiff's right was not clearly established and they are therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

Estate of Charles Chivrell v. City of Arcata

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 6, 2024

To determine if an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, the 10 Court considers whether (1) the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) that right 11 was clearly established at the time of the … See Perez, 98 F.4th at 928 (contravention of training would not 26 defeat qualified immunity because “the law did not clearly establish, nor did

Siebert v. Severino

97 F. Supp. 2d 882 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · May 24, 2000

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818-19 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (even if the law is clearly established, an official is entitled to qualified immunity if he neither knew or should have known of the relevant legal … prevail on her due process claim because Severino violated clearly established constitutional law.

Ray v. Washington State Department of Health and Human Services

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 17, 2025

qualified immunity. … Bd. of Regents of Nevada Sys. of Higher Educ., 616 20 F.3d 963, 969 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[W]e may begin the qualified immunity analysis by considering 21 whether there is a violation of clearly established law without

Locantore v. Hunt

775 F. Supp. 2d 680 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 31, 2011

require a conclusion that it was ‘clearly established’ in the qualified immunity context.” … Because it was not clearly established for qualified immunity purposes that to impose PRS administratively was unlawful prior to Earley , it must follow that it was also not clearly established that it was unlawful to do

Porter v. Jameson

889 F. Supp. 1484 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · May 12, 1995

“clearly established”). … Simply put, Officer Jameson is entitled to qualified immunity if the Porters fail to produce sufficient evidence that, when viewed in the light most favorable to them, Jameson violated their clearly established Fourteenth

ZHANG v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF GEORGIA

District Court, M.D. Georgia · Aug 26, 2024

Jones, 575 F.3d 1281, 1300 (11th Cir. 2009) (explaining "clearly established" prong of the qualified immunity test). … It was clearly established before 2020 that § 1981 prohibited such conduct. Cordero and Davis are not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage in the litigation.

Bossio v. Taylor (INMATE 1)

District Court, M.D. Alabama · Oct 21, 2019

Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009) (holding that courts can address the clearly established prong of qualified immunity analysis first). … Therefore, the law was not clearly established at the time of the action in question, and the individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Belcher v.

Gioia v. Bradshaw

District Court, S.D. Florida · Aug 8, 2025

Florida Department of Probation, filed August 19, 2024 (separate § 2254 habeas petition challenging guilty plea of 1 I note that there may also be qualified or absolute immunity defenses for the various Defendants Plaintiff … Baldwin County, 835 F.3d 1338, 1343-44 (11th Cir. 2016) (“qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from liability if their conduct violates no clearly established statutory or

Finch v. Wichita, Kansas, City of

District Court, D. Kansas · Sep 15, 2020

of the qualified immunity analysis – a finding of qualified immunity … preclude[s] the imposition of municipal liability.” … clearly established would not necessarily preclude Plaintiffs’ claim against the City. Cf. Contreras on behalf of A.L. v. Dona Ana Cty. Bd. of Cty.

ORTIZ v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY FREEHOLDERS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 24, 2024

Yost, 63 F.4th 211, 228 (3d Cir. 2023) (a § 1983 defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if the right at issue was not clearly established at the time it was allegedly violated) (citation omitted). … Broad general propositions in precedential cases, without sufficient factual context, do not clearly establish a constitutional right for purposes of qualified immunity. Id. (citing Mullenix v.

Sims v. Figueroa

District Court, M.D. Florida · Aug 27, 2019

Qualified Immunity Defendant Figueroa alternatively asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … As to qualified immunity, the Eleventh Circuit has stated: To invoke qualified immunity, a public official must first demonstrate

Nunes v. Stephens

District Court, E.D. California · May 17, 2021

Defendants appealed the denial of qualified immunity. 1 On December 29, 2020, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion that reversed this Court’s 2 denial of qualified immunity. See Nunes v. … Raemisch, 864 F.3d 1071, 1078-79 (10th Cir. 2017) (holding that a prior published opinion could be read narrowly or 28 expansively and was too ambiguous to constitute “clearly established law” for purposes of qualified

Vreeland v. Olson

District Court, D. Colorado · Sep 16, 2021

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Accordingly, plaintiff has not carried his burden, in the face of the assertion of qualified immunity, to show that this right was clearly established in 5 Plaintiff argues for the first time in his response to the objection

Beyond Systems, Inc. v. Keynetics, Inc.

422 F. Supp. 2d 523 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 14, 2006

Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299 , 116 S.Ct. 834 , 133 L.Ed.2d 773 (1996) (qualified immunity defense may be raised at both the motion to dismiss and summary judgment stages). … Case law clearly establishes that CDA immunity applies even where an ISP knew of its customers’ potentially illegal activity. The Fourth Circuit in Zeran explained why.