Case law

Green v. City of Welch

822 F. Supp. 1236 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Jun 3, 1993

The Defense of Qualified Immunity Police officers are entitled to summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity in civil rights cases if they can establish that reasonable officers could have believed that their actions … were lawful in light of both clearly established law and information the officers possessed at the time of the acts in question.

Bausch v. Sumiec

139 F. Supp. 2d 1029 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Apr 10, 2001

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “governmental officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Once a defendant has *1039 pleaded a defense of qualified immunity courts employ a two step- analysis: (1) does the alleged conduct set out a constitutional violation, and (2) were the constitutional standards clearly established

Alston v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 24, 2025

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields officers from liability for claims of unlawful conduct, so long as that conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional law. … Alston—separate and apart from shooting him—violated clearly established law such that the officers would not be entitled to qualified immunity. 21 deadly or not—in

Petersen v. Midgett

140 F. Supp. 3d 490 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Sep 25, 2015

Qualified immunity provides that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.”

Long v. City and County of Honolulu

378 F. Supp. 2d 1241 · District Court, D. Hawaii · Jul 11, 2005

If the answer is no, there is qualified immunity. If the answer is yes, the court then asks whether the right was “clearly established.” Id. at 201-02, 121 S.Ct. 2151 . … See, e.g., Blanford, 406 F.3d at 1116 (finding qualified immunity where deadly force was used to stop suspect appearing to threaten others with a sword); Billing - ton, 292 F.3d at 1184-85 (finding qualified immunity where

Chambliss v. Buckner

804 F. Supp. 2d 1240 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Mar 29, 2011

However, even if the evidence demonstrated a violation of § 407(a), for qualified immunity purposes, it was not clearly established at the time Mr. … Chambliss fails to show that any Defendant violated § 407(a) or, alternatively, that any violation involves a clearly established federal statutory right. Defendants are, therefore, entitled to qualified immunity on Mr.

Jordan v. Cobb County, Georgia

227 F. Supp. 2d 1322 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Sep 28, 2001

violate “clearly established law?” … “In this circuit, the law can be ‘clearly established’ for qualified immunity purposes only by decisions of the U.S.

Wimer v. Holzapfel

868 F. Supp. 844 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Sep 27, 1994

Qualified Immunity While the court’s ruling on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment motion obviates the need to examine the issue of qualified immunity, this court feels it is appropriate to address the question. … It is for this court to decide whether Sheriff Holzapfel is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.

McGunigle v. City of Quincy

944 F. Supp. 2d 113 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 16, 2013

Qualified Immunity Finally, the individual Defendants move for dismissal based on qualified immunity. The Supreme Court has articulated a two-step procedure for determining qualified immunity. … employee-speech law requires a fact-intensive balancing test, “it can rarely be considered ‘clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity.” 87 Yet, without more information, the court cannot determine whether this

West v. Keve

541 F. Supp. 534 · District Court, D. Delaware · Jun 11, 1982

[T]he immunity defense would be unavailing to petitioners if the constitutional right allegedly infringed by them was clearly established at the time of their challenged conduct, if they knew or should have known of that … To be protected by his or her qualified immunity, an official must establish that he or she acted in good faith, without intending to violate any of plaintiff’s constitutional or statutory rights and, further, that a reasonable

Crema v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

District Court, D. Nevada · Sep 25, 2023

Qualified Immunity 15 Defendants contend that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s First 16 Cause of Action because there was no clearly established law at the time of … Second Prong 11 As for the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry, Plaintiff has also met his burden 12 in showing that Defendants violated a clearly established right.

Cortes v. Johnson

114 F. Supp. 2d 182 · District Court, W.D. New York · Sep 18, 2000

Qualified immunity shields public officials “from civil damages liability insofar as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,’ Harlow … Therefore, “[t]o defeat an official’s claim of qualified immunity, the individual’s right must have been clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” LaBounty v. Coughlin, 1996 WL 711497 *1 (S.D.N.Y.1996).

Hunter v. S.D. Dept. of Soc. Servs.

377 F. Supp. 3d 964 · United States District Court · Mar 25, 2019

s Fourth Amendment claim. ii) Step Two: Clearly Established Right Even if A.Q. was deprived of a constitutional right, Defendants can claim the protection of qualified immunity if that right was not "clearly established." … Qualified immunity does not require there be a case directly on point before concluding that the law is clearly established, "but existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.

McGee v. Dunn

940 F. Supp. 2d 93 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 16, 2013

As explained by this Court in its original opinion: Qualified immunity will shield an officer from civil liability under § 1983 if either: (1) his conduct did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person … Town of Wolcott, 599 F.3d 129, 134 (2d Cir.2010) (“Even where the law is ‘clearly established’ and the scope of an official’s permissible conduct is ‘clearly defined,’ the qualified immunity defense also protects an official

Hartley v. Wilfert

918 F. Supp. 2d 45 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 24, 2013

“The 16 doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … It must now determine whether that right was clearly established. To reject an official’s claim of qualified immunity, “the unlawfulness” of his action must be apparent “in the light of pre-existing law.” Atherton v.

Beaulah v. Muscogee County Sheriff's Deputies

447 F. Supp. 2d 1342 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Aug 31, 2006

Qualified immunity shields public officers acting within the scope of their discretionary authority from liability so long as their acts do not violate clearly established law. See Hope v. … The Court finds, however, that the tactical deployment did not violate law that was clearly established at the time of the stop and that Ellerbee is entitled to qualified immunity for the part he played in it.

Lingenfelter v. Board of County Commissioners of Reno County

359 F. Supp. 2d 1163 · District Court, D. Kansas · Mar 14, 2005

Even if the allegations show a violation of plaintiffs Fourth Amendment rights, defendants argue that Sheriff Henderson is protected by qualified immunity because there was no clearly established law putting him on notice … Qualified Immunity.

Ogden v. District of Columbia

676 F. Supp. 324 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 25, 1987

Defendant Manjoras moved to dismiss the section 1983 claim on the basis of qualified immunity and the common law claims on the basis of absolute immunity. … In Anderson , the Court made it clear that a qualified immunity analysis requires close examination of whether under the particular facts presented a clearly established right was violated.

Masel v. Barrett

707 F. Supp. 4 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 23, 1989

The “clearly established” rule, however, cannot be so broadly defined that plaintiffs would be able to convert the rule of qualified immunity into “a rule of virtually unqualified liability simply by alleging violation of … Defendant’s contention that he is entitled to qualified immunity because there was no “clearly established” rule of law to govern his conduct at that time also fails.

Ridgeview Partners, LLC v. Entwistle

354 F. Supp. 2d 395 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 27, 2005

Sussman argues for qualified immunity protection. … When a public official violates no clearly established constitutional right and acts in all times in good faith and conformance with clearly established law, that official is entitled to qualified immunity. Anderson v.