Case law

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

Ospina v. Department of Corrections, State of Del.

749 F. Supp. 572 · District Court, D. Delaware · Oct 31, 1990

In reviewing a qualified immunity claim, the District Court must determine whether a reasonable officer could have believed the defendant’s actions were lawful in light of clearly established law and of the information the … The constitutional infirmity of such police conduct thus was “clearly established” at the time of the arrest in this case.

Green v. Security Assurance Management

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 11, 2024

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … The “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity “means that, at the time of the officer’s conduct, the law was ‘sufficiently clear’ that every ‘reasonable official would understand that what he is doing’ is unlawful

Hoffman v. Lehman

926 F. Supp. 510 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 23, 1996

violation of clearly established law. … Defendants argue that even if Plaintiffs have stated a substantive due process claim based upon clearly established law, the evidence so far developed entitles them to summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity

Walker v. Tyler County Commission

886 F. Supp. 540 · District Court, N.D. West Virginia · May 22, 1995

An executive official is entitled to qualified immunity where an objective observer could find that the officer reasonably believed that his conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional rights. See e.g. … any clearly established constitutional rights of the plaintiff.

Jordan v. Berman

792 F. Supp. 380 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 1, 1992

whether a constitutional right is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity, a court must determine whether the contours of the right at the time of the alleged violation were sufficiently clear in light of … The court agrees with the Eighth Circuit that by 1982, and thus ipso facto by 1989, it was clearly established, particularly in view of North Georgia Finishing, Inc. v.

Cox v. Maine State Police

324 F. Supp. 2d 128 · District Court, D. Maine · May 27, 2004

The crux of the defendants’ objection is the third component of qualified immunity: whether an objectively reasonable officer would have understood that the arrest violated Cox’s clearly established constitutional right to … in the qualified immunity analysis.

NUON v. City of Lowell

768 F. Supp. 2d 323 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 4, 2011

The principle of qualified immunity shields a police officer from liability for civil damages when his conduct does not violate clearly-established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … On this point, Kinney would not be entitled to qualified immunity.

Johnson v. City of New York

940 F. Supp. 631 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 24, 1996

An officer may also establish qualified immunity by showing that, notwithstanding a violation of a clearly established constitutional or statutory right, it was objectively reasonable for him to believe his actions did not … Polis is Entitled to Qualified Immunity on the Excessive Force Claim Polis is entitled to qualified immunity on Johnson’s excessive force claim.

Lamb v. City of Decatur

947 F. Supp. 1261 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Nov 19, 1996

“It is the plaintiff who bears the burden of establishing the existence of the allegedly clearly established constitutional right.” Rice v. Burks, 999 F.2d 1172, 1174 (7th Cir.1993). … The Decatur police do not qualify for immunity.

Vaughn v. Ricketts

663 F. Supp. 401 · District Court, D. Arizona · May 29, 1987

In Ward , the court rejected the defendant’s qualified immunity defense and held that a 1981 visual body cavity search of a misdemeanor arrestee conducted in the absence of a reasonable grounds was a violation of clearly … The burden of overcoming an official’s qualified immunity by demonstrating the existence of a clearly established right rests with the plaintiff. Davis v.

A.B. ex rel. B.S. v. Adams-Arapahoe 28J School District

831 F. Supp. 2d 1226 · District Court, D. Colorado · Nov 28, 2011

Was the constitutional violation clearly established? Rice has asserted qualified immunity as a defense to these claims. Thus, she is liable only if her actions violated a clearly established constitutional right. … Burke also asserts qualified immunity. Therefore, she is liable for these constitutional violations only if they were clearly established at the time they were committed.

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

Davis v. Powell

901 F. Supp. 2d 1196 · District Court, S.D. California · Oct 4, 2012

Qualified Immunity All of the Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity from liability on the First and Fourteenth Amendment claims because they did not violate clearly established constitutional law, and they … Castro, 621 F.3d at 1199 (stating that courts can grant qualified immunity on the basis of the clearly established prong alone) (citing Rowlands, 606 F.3d at 651 ).

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.

Brown v. City of Atlanta

284 F. Supp. 3d 1326 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Jan 9, 2018

Thus, the court now considers whether those rights were clearly established. … Accordingly, because Brown has pointed to clearly established law that prohibits the alleged conduct, the Individual Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity, and their motion for summary judgment must be DENIED.

Caddell v. Campbell

District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 28, 2021

Separately, he argues that even if a jailor could bear legal liability in that setting, it was not clearly established that a jailor could, and thus qualified immunity is warranted. (Id. at #209–213). … To succeed on his qualified immunity defense, on the other hand, Jones must establish that Cadell failed to allege that Jones’s “conduct violated a constitutional right that was clearly established law at the time.”

Fultz v. Whittaker

261 F. Supp. 2d 767 · District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Apr 2, 2003

Defendants argue that this evidence establishes that the Officers are entitled to qualified immunity on each of Plaintiffs remaining claims. … The final steps in the qualified immunity analysis require the Court to determine whether the right Whittaker allegedly violated was a “clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known

Estate of Fortunato Ex Rel. Fortunato v. Handler

969 F. Supp. 963 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 21, 1996

Qualified Immunity Generally, governmental officials carrying out discretionary functions are shielded from liability for civil damages where their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional … Under any of the panel members’ views expressed in City of Philadelphia, these defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for the use of deadly force, which did not violate the “clearly established law”

Todd v. Montoya

877 F. Supp. 2d 1048 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Jun 24, 2012

Once the plaintiff has established the inference that the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right, a qualified-immunity defense generally fails. See Cannon v. … Clearly Established Rights in the Qualifíed-Immunity Analysis.