Case law

Williams v. Aaron

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jan 18, 2024

The Defendant argues in the Trial Brief that he is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate any clearly established right, and that the Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by failing … Alford, 973 F.2d 307, 312 (4th Cir. 1992) (the question of whether a right is clearly established is a question of law for the court to decide).

Heslip v. Lobbs

554 F. Supp. 694 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Dec 7, 1982

Rather than pass on the defendants’ qualified immunity claim, the Supreme Court reshaped the contours of the qualified immunity standard, and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals. 3 In numerous cases, cited supra, courts … In essence, the qualified immunity defense attempts to accommodate these competing social goals. The Harlow opinion suggests that evolving standards for qualified immunity had rendered the defense negligible in effect.

Chipperini v. Crandall

253 F. Supp. 2d 301 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 26, 2003

Clearly Established Right As noted above, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if they did not violate Chipperini’s “clearly established” rights when they arrested her. … establish’ the law for qualified immunity purposes.

Triomphe Investors v. City of Northwood

835 F. Supp. 1036 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 29, 1993

Qualified Immunity Defendants also argue that they are entitled to summary judgment based on the doctrine of qualified immunity. … known that they were violating plaintiffs’ clearly established constitutional right.

Gonzales v. Dankel

District Court, E.D. Texas · Jun 12, 2024

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established rights. Johnston, 14 F.3d at 1059. … “Even if the government official’s conduct violates a clearly established right, the official is nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct was objectively reasonable.” Hernandez v. Tex.

Sims v. City of Seattle

District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 19, 2023

Defendants have raised a viable issue regarding the manner in which the Court analyzed 19 qualified immunity. See Cunningham v. … Fry, 873 F.3d 817, 821 (9th Cir. 2017) (“[T]he 4 ‘clearly established’ inquiry is a question of law that only a judge can decide.”).

Farris v. Maury County Jail

District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Apr 4, 2025

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages “unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time. … Evans, 90 F.4th 541, 548 (6th Cir. 2024) (the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity because the plaintiff’s cursory briefing makes no attempt to meet his burden of showing that the defendant violated his clearly

Fajardo v. City of Bakersfield

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 25, 2022

Immunity 3 “Qualified immunity shields officers from civil liability so long as their conduct does not 4 violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … S. 223 (2009)(holding 6 that officers were entitled to qualified immunity because their entry did not violate clearly 7

Soto v. Trejo

District Court, D. New Mexico · May 29, 2024

In their Motion, Defendants argue that Defendant Johnson is entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff has not alleged that she violated any clearly established law or acted with requisite intent to state a § 1983 … Defendants point out that, under Plaintiff’s view of what constitutes a violation of “clearly established” law, any violation of an administrative rule would suffice to deny qualified immunity to a state official.

BUSH v. RENEGAR

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 9, 2020

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity has long “protect[ed] government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … establish a right for purposes of qualified immunity.”

Neri v. City of San Benito, Texas

District Court, S.D. Texas · Aug 22, 2024

In his Motion to Dismiss, Stansbury pleads qualified immunity. Dkt. No. 17, pp. 3- 4. Resultingly, it is Neri who bears the burden of establishing that qualified immunity is inappropriate. … Given the above, Stansbury is entitled to the protections of qualified immunity because there is no clearly established law that put him on notice that his conduct was unconstitutional.

Abdulsalaam v. Franklin County Board of Commissioners

637 F. Supp. 2d 561 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 23, 2009

qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity Defendants claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity on all of Plaintiffs’ federal claims.

Driever v. United States of America

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 19, 2020

Qualified immunity protects officials from suits unless their actions are (1) plainly incompetent, or (2) committed with knowledge of violation of clearly established law. See Malley v. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 227 (2009) (finding that officials were entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that their conduct was unconstitutional).

Albero v. Worcester County Board of Commissioners

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 11, 2025

Elliott, 25 F.4th 227, 235 (4th Cir. 2022) (explaining that qualified immunity applies when either (1) a plaintiff fails to state a violation of a federal right or (2) a defendant shows the right was not clearly established … Having determined that Plaintiffs fail to state a violation of Arthur’s federal rights, there is no need for the Court to address, for qualified-immunity purposes, whether any such right was “clearly established” at the

David Lee v. City of Portsmouth

2002 DNH 064 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Mar 19, 2002

"Clearly established for the 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." … The next step is to ask whether the right to be free from excessive force under the facts alleged was clearly established.

Millet v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 13, 2025

Wesby, 583 U.S. 48, 62–63 (2018) (“[O]fficers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established … As noted, “officers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’”

Walker v. Johnson

District Court, W.D. Virginia · Mar 18, 2020

“Under the second prong, a government official is entitled to qualified immunity if the right at issue was not “clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” al-Kidd, 563 U.S. at 735. … cannot be considered in deciding whether particular conduct violated clearly established law for purposes of adjudging entitlement to qualified immunity”).

Pierson v. Itawamba County, Mississippi

District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Jun 3, 2020

Thomas, 843 F.3d 172, 177 (Sth Cir. 2016) (“Qualified immunity protects officers from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.”) (quoting Mace v. … Qualified immunity calls for a bifurcated test in which the court must first determine (1) “whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established

McKnight v. Kingsboro

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 6, 2024

At this stage of the litigation, these averments are sufficient to establish that Defendants Ferrari and Heine violated clearly established law for the purposes of qualified immunity. See Dayoub v. … Additionally, the “clearly established” test relates only to a qualified immunity, not a sovereign immunity, analysis. Brautigam, 684 F.

Cramer v. Bohinski

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 6, 2023

Alternatively, The defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the rights allegedly violated were not clearly established at the time of the violation. (Id.) … the right was clearly established.