Case law

Wetmore v. Gardner

735 F. Supp. 974 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Apr 6, 1990

Qualified Immunity The defendants next contend that they are entitled to a verdict in their favor or a new trial based on the doctrine of qualified immunity. … . *983 Because it was clearly established law that the policy could be found constitutional only by a showing of legitimate penological need, the policymaker defendants were entitled to qualified immunity only if it was shown

Classroom Teachers of Dallas v. Dallas Independent School District

164 F. Supp. 2d 839 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Apr 6, 2001

immunity because Plaintiffs allege no affirmative *846 conduct on the part of either; and 4) Me-drano is entitled to qualified immunity because his actions did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. … Consequently, a defendant in that situation might not have violated a clearly established constitutional right and qualified immunity might still be available. 10 .

Harcz v. Boucher

300 F. Supp. 3d 945 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Jan 2, 2018

immunity because the Sixth Circuit's prior case law clearly established that the officers' conduct was unlawful. … "clearly established" prong.

L.C. v. Utah State Board of Education

188 F. Supp. 2d 1330 · District Court, D. Utah · Feb 28, 2002

the right was clearly established in light of the specific factual context of the case. … hearing process as she did was not clearly established at the time.

Fishman v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 13, 2025

Qualified Immunity All defendants assert qualified immunity. … Therefore, if defendants wish to avail themselves of qualified immunity, they cannot have violated a constitutional right that is clearly established. See id.

Rasul v. Rumsfeld

414 F. Supp. 2d 26 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 6, 2006

Qualified immunity “shield[s officials] from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Any Constitutional Right was Not Clearly Established Assuming arguendo that the D.C.

Marshall v. Walker

958 F. Supp. 359 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 27, 1997

Qualified immunity applies “if a reasonable officer could have believed [plaintiffs arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting] officers possessed.” Hunter v. … Qualified immunity analysis is a two-step inquiry: whether the law was clearly established and, if so, whether the conduct was objectively reasonable. Eversole, 59 F.3d at 717 ; Biddle v.

Mason v. Village of Babylon, New York

124 F. Supp. 2d 807 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 20, 2000

clearly established constitutional rights. … At the very least, McManus is clearly entitled to qualified immunity on the false arrest claim. McManus was informed of an outstanding warrant and acted thereupon.

Sanabria v. Martins

568 F. Supp. 2d 220 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 26, 2008

not violated clearly established law.” … immunity, as a matter of well-established law.

Edmond v. Winters

226 F. Supp. 3d 914 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Dec 22, 2016

Qualified immunity insulates government officials from liability in their individual capacities so long as they have not violated clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Parrish v. … Even if the application of the Arkansas Sex Offender Registration Act to Edmond violated the ex post facto clause, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the right at issue was not clearly established at

Webb v. Jessamine County Fiscal Court

802 F. Supp. 2d 870 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Aug 5, 2011

To avoid summary judgment based on an assertion of qualified immunity, Plaintiff must first show “a violation of a constitutional right” and that the violated right “was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the defendant’ … Summary judgment is, thus, precluded on the basis of qualified immunity for Teaven so long as the violated right “was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct.” Pearson v.

Marin v. Gonzales, et al.

2005 DNH 167 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Dec 19, 2005

Qualified Immunity. … Qualified immunity protects "government officials performing discretionary functions . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Winder v. Erste

905 F. Supp. 2d 19 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 19, 2012

However, even if a plaintiff can establish that there was a violation of a clearly established constitutional or statutory right, a defendant seeking qualified immunity can still demonstrate that there were extraordinary … Erste argues that he is protected by qualified immunity from Winder's procedural due process claim because it is not "clearly established" that Winder had a property interest in his continued employment when Erste terminated

Harris v. Roderick

933 F. Supp. 977 · District Court, D. Idaho · May 28, 1996

Qualified immunity protects law enforcement officials from liability for civil damages unless their conduct violates “clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Even if the Court cannot find as a matter of law that the shot was reasonable, Defendants assert, the Court can find that the law on excessive force was not clearly established and that Horiuchi has qualified immunity.

Holguin v. Lopez

584 F. Supp. 2d 921 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Oct 28, 2008

However, qualified immunity shields state actors performing discretionary functions from liability unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … “Texas law of official immunity is substantially the same as federal qualified immunity law.” Wren v. Towe, 130 F.3d 1154, 1160 (5th Cir.1997).

Leibowitz v. CITY OF MINEOLA, TEX.

660 F. Supp. 2d 775 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Oct 2, 2009

Qualified Immunity Bittner asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity is intended to shield government officials from liability for monetary damages for acts in the performance of discretionary functions that were objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law

Little v. Smith

114 F. Supp. 2d 437 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 17, 2000

Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages to the extent that “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … [Qualified immunity is an immunity from suit, and not merely a defense to liability....

Long v. Morris

485 F. Supp. 2d 1247 · District Court, D. Kansas · May 3, 2007

Analysis Defendant seeks qualified immunity on plaintiffs claim of excessive force. … Ordinarily, in order for plaintiff to demonstrate that a law is clearly established, “there must be a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision on point, or the clearly established weight of authority from other courts must

Hickey v. Hayse

188 F. Supp. 2d 722 · District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Dec 17, 2001

A government official enjoys qualified immunity if his conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person should have known. Williams v. … To find that an officer has violated the clearly established constitutional right negating the defense of qualified immunity, the trial court must find binding precedent establishing the right.

Hegwood v. City of Eau Claire

668 F. Supp. 2d 1156 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Nov 10, 2009

“cannot clearly establish a constitutional violation.”). … Because plaintiffs have failed to show that it was “clearly established” that applying Wisconsin’s disorderly house statute would *1168 be unconstitutional, I conclude that the individual defendants have qualified immunity