Case law

Abila v. Funk

220 F. Supp. 3d 1121 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Nov 23, 2016

*1170 established prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … Clearly Established Rights in the Qualified Immunity Analysis.

Shoup v. Doyle

974 F. Supp. 2d 1058 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 24, 2013

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 … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) and stating that “once the [defendants] raise qualified immunity, Jackson must plead the violation of a clearly established constitutional right”)).

Hoyland v. McMenomy

185 F. Supp. 3d 1111 · District Court, D. Minnesota · May 5, 2016

Qualified immunity protects government officers from § 1983 liability “unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Thus, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on the basis that Hoy-land’s First Amendment right was not clearly established.

Pinder v. Commissioners of Cambridge

821 F. Supp. 376 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 10, 1993

The lack of precise factors does not establish Defendants’ qualified immunity. … If an official subject to qualified immunity could claim that a right is not “clearly established” because the right contains limitations or has some uncertain areas of application, then an official would always be immune

Webster v. Moquin

175 F. Supp. 2d 315 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Nov 20, 2001

Once a defendant raises a qualified immunity defense, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish that immunity does not apply. See Davis v. … Because qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, the defendants bear the “burden of demonstrating the nonexistence of a clearly established right.” Tellier v. Fields, No. 98-2249, 2001 WL 457767, at *11 (2d Cir.

Krider v. Marshall

118 F. Supp. 2d 704 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Oct 6, 2000

Doory, 14 F.3d 993, 995 (4th Cir.1994): “Qualified immunity shields a governmental official from liability for civil monetary damages if the officer’s ‘conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The Court of Appeals has parsed out the qualified immunity analysis: “First, we must identify the right allegedly violated; second, we must decide whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation

Minigan v. Irvin

977 F. Supp. 607 · District Court, W.D. New York · Aug 18, 1997

Qualified Immunity. Defendants are also entitled to summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity. … Even when such rights are clearly established, qualified immunity will protect a government official “if it was objectively reasonable for [the official] to believe that his acts did not violate those rights.”

Swenson v. Culberson County

925 F. Supp. 478 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Apr 23, 1996

Qualified Immunity Once a prima facie case under Section 1983 is established, the question becomes whether a defendant is entitled to some kind of defense against or immunity from damages liability. … a qualified immunity defense to police officers.

Rodriguez v. WOLBACH

499 F. Supp. 2d 479 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 27, 2007

However, if a constitutional violation is *488 proven, “the next ... step is to ask whether the right was clearly established.” 92 Qualified immunity applies unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional … his conduct was unlawful.’ ” 115 If an official’s conduct did not violate clearly established law, that official is entitled to qualified immunity.

Brantley v. Wysocki

145 F. Supp. 3d 407 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 30, 2015

Corporal Wysocki is entitled to qualified immunity on Brantley’s First Amendment Retaliation claim “Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability from civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate … The next question is determining if Brantley’s constitutional right is clearly established.

Brogdon v. City of New Rochelle

200 F. Supp. 2d 411 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 15, 2002

Furthermore, both Benge and Chiera are entitled to qualified immunity. … The Supreme Court has recently defined what it means for a law to be “clearly established” in the context of a qualified immunity defense: ‘Clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity means that ‘the contours

Pavlov v. Parsons

574 F. Supp. 393 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Oct 14, 1983

and qualified immunity from the constitutional tort claims. … Once the defendant establishes this defense, the burden then shifts to the plaintiff to prove that the defendants’ action violated clearly established law. Harlow v.

Pfeil v. Lampert

11 F. Supp. 3d 1099 · District Court, D. Wyoming · Mar 31, 2014

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 , 129 S.Ct. 808 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009), we held that courts may grant qualified immunity on the ground that a purported right was not “clearly established” by prior case law, without resolving

Conroy v. Caron

275 F. Supp. 3d 328 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Aug 8, 2017

That is because 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 … Moreover, their entry into the garages under these . assumed circumstances violated clearly established law, such that they are- not entitled at this time to the protection of qualified immunity. 5 *344 2.

Torres-Rivera v. Calderón-Serra

328 F. Supp. 2d 237 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 5, 2004

Qualified Immunity “[Gjovernment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Therefore, the Court has room for only one conclusion: that plaintiffs have failed to establish the second prong of the qualified immunity test, that the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Sack v. City of St. Louis

District Court, E.D. Missouri · Sep 30, 2025

“Qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability in § 1983 actions when their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … Herron, 687 F.3d 971, 978 (8th Cir. 2012) (rejecting argument that the “clearly established right analysis” is limited to cases involving § 1983 and qualified immunity).

Cameron v. Montgomery County Child Welfare Service

471 F. Supp. 761 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 22, 1979

The defendants’ motion is based on judicial or quasi-judicial immunity and a qualified good faith immunity. As the Supreme Court held in Pierson v. … in support thereof (or the lack of that authority), whether a claim has been stated by *767 a specific count, and whether a specific right was or was not clearly established.

Turpin v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 27, 2024

Thus, an officer conducting a search “is entitled to qualified immunity where clearly established law does not show that the search violated the Fourth Amendment.” Pearson, 555 U.S. at 243–44. … But even putting aside the different facts that case presented, a decision of a district court cannot clearly establish the law for qualified immunity purposes.

The Schatz Family v. Gierer

399 F. Supp. 2d 973 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Mar 24, 2004

the motions to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds. … In short, even if the plaintiffs' could be said to have stated a violation of their constitutional rights, the Court finds that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the right was not clearly established

Brown v. Montana

442 F. Supp. 2d 982 · District Court, D. Montana · Jun 12, 2006

Qualified Immunity Defendants also argue that Wills is entitled to qualified immunity. … If the law was clearly established as to that social worker’s action, it likewise was clearly established here.