Case law

Denning v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville

564 F. Supp. 2d 805 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Jun 16, 2008

Once the qualified immunity defense is raised by the defendant, it becomes the plaintiffs burden to show that the defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity. Untalan v. … The second question in determining the applicability of qualified immunity — whether Denning had a clearly established constitutional right not to be fired upon — is therefore moot.

Gregg v. Ohio Department of Youth Services

661 F. Supp. 2d 842 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 22, 2009

Telb, 831 F.2d 673 (6th Cir.1987), when the defense of qualified immunity is raised, a plaintiff must include in the pleadings factual allegations necessary to support the conclusion that the defendants violated clearly established … Gregg’s constitutional rights, it is unnecessary to reach the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity as to these defendants. See Bukowski v. City of Akron, 326 F.3d 702, 708 (6th Cir.2003).

Anilao v. Spota

774 F. Supp. 2d 457 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 31, 2011

Legal Standard If absolute immunity does not apply, government actors may be shielded from liability for civil damages by qualified immunity, ie., if their “conduct did not violate plaintiffs clearly established rights, or … Cnty. of Suffolk, 316 F.3d 368, 385 (2d Cir.2003); see also Fielding, 257 Fed.Appx. at 401 (“The police officers, in turn, are protected by qualified immunity if their actions do not violate clearly established law, or it

Ellis v. City of Indianapolis

800 F. Supp. 733 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 24, 1992

clearly established. … Qualified Immunity Defense Applies to Wynalda’s Conduct The question whether qualified immunity attaches to an officer’s conduct is always one for the judge to decide. Simkunas v.

Whitfield v. Municipality of Fajardo

279 F. Supp. 2d 115 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 19, 2003

Government officials are generally immune from suit when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory authority or constitutional rights, which a reasonable person should have known of at the time of the conduct … Second, these rights were clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Estate of Henson v. Wichita County, Tex.

652 F. Supp. 2d 730 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Aug 4, 2009

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials sued pursuant to § 1983 “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … In order to overcome the defense of qualified immunity, Plaintiffs must prove Dr. Bolin violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Gibson v.

Richards v. Metropolitan Police Department Officer Jennifer Gelsomino

240 F. Supp. 3d 173 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 3, 2017

“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 a reasonable person … On the facts as currently alleged, then, Gelsomino is not entitled to qualified immunity because she violated a clearly established constitutional right when she arrested Richards without a warrant or probable cause.

Searles v. Van Bebber

993 F. Supp. 1350 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jan 7, 1998

Defendants also claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity, which shields them from liability unless they violated clearly established constitutional or statutory norms. Anderson v. … Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct was objectively reasonable in the light of clearly established law and the information which the possessed at the time of the alleged violation. Martin v.

Reed v. Garden City Union Free School District

987 F. Supp. 2d 260 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 16, 2013

Qualified immunity protects an official from civil liability if their conduct does not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Taravella v. … When evaluating whether qualified immunity applies, the court must engage in a two-part inquiry: 1) whether the constitutional right has been violated; and 2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the

Holley v. COUNTY OF ORANGE, NY

625 F. Supp. 2d 131 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 14, 2009

Qualified immunity shields government officials whose conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Thus, a qualified immunity defense is established where “(a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that his action did not violate

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).

Hedrick v. Roberts

183 F. Supp. 2d 814 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Sep 27, 2001

Qualified Immunity State actors, such as prison officials performing discretionary functions, enjoy qualified immunity if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … In determining whether a state actor is entitled to qualified immunity, a court “must (1) identify the right allegedly violated, (2) determine whether the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the incident

Scocca v. Smith

912 F. Supp. 2d 875 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 17, 2012

This' is because, for qualified immunity, the Court must consider what the clearly established law was at the time of the sheriffs decision to deny Mr. Scocca’s application for a CCW license. … “Clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity means that “the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official' would understand that what he is doing violates that right.

Broudy v. Mather

366 F. Supp. 2d 3 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 4, 2005

The applicable legal standard 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 … A court facing qualified immunity claims ordinarily engages in a two-step inquiry.

Fares v. U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service

29 F. Supp. 2d 259 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Oct 27, 1998

Qualified Immunity Individual Defendants argue that, at the very least, they are all shielded from Plaintiffs’ Bivens claims by qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity holds that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

A.M. ex rel. Law v. Grant

889 F. Supp. 1495 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jun 21, 1995

Under this test, public officials performing discretionary functions which would objectively appear to be within the official’s authority have qualified immunity if their challenged conduct did not violate a clearly established … The Eleventh Circuit recently explained that [flor the law to be clearly established to the point that qualified immunity does not apply, the law must have earlier been developed in such a concrete and factually defined context

Falkiewicz v. City of Westland

25 F. Supp. 2d 783 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Oct 26, 1998

Defendants claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate any clearly established rights. 4 Standard of Review Qualified Immunity Defendants rely upon the doctrine of qualified immunity to … Under the qualified immunity doctrine, “government officials pferforming discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Moore v. Winer

190 F. Supp. 2d 804 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 20, 2002

The Supreme Court has recognized that questions of qualified immunity should be resolved as early as possible in the litigation, *806 as the purpose of the doctrine of qualified immunity is to serve as a bar to suit, not … Having in mind the Supreme Court’s threshold tests for consideration of a qualified immunity claim, see Wilson v.

Harvey v. Montgomery County

881 F. Supp. 2d 785 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Apr 30, 2012

“Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from civil liability ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The Deputies’ actions were simply not objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law. Therefore, the Deputies are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs deliberate indifference to medical care claim.

Timothy Beers v. Jon Fouts et al.

2018 DNH 144 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Jul 10, 2018

In granting defendant Forcier’s motion to dismiss and the remaining defendants’ motion for summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity, this court determined that the law was not clearly established in December … Qualified Immunity Further, this court previously concluded that defendants are shielded by qualified immunity from plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment challenge to the group strip search.