Case law

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

Leibel v. City of Buckeye

364 F. Supp. 3d 1027 · District Court, D. Arizona · Jan 30, 2019

s clearly-established constitutional rights. Thus, Officer Grossman is not entitled to qualified immunity on Cause I at this early stage of litigation. … Because the right to be free from excessive force is clearly established, Officer Grossman is not, at this juncture, entitled to qualified immunity related to Cause II.

Fields v. City of Chicago

805 F. Supp. 2d 536 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 4, 2011

“A prosecutor is entitled to qualified immunity if his or her actions did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Hill, 627 F.3d at 606 . … Under Buckley IV, Wharrie’s procurement of false statements from Hawkins did not violate Fields’s clearly established constitutional rights, thus entitling Wharrie to qualified immunity for that aspect of Fields’s claims.

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.

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.

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.

Hatori v. Haga

751 F. Supp. 1401 · District Court, D. Hawaii · Nov 17, 1989

capacities, they are protected by qualified immunity because there existed at the time of their actions no clearly established law holding their conduct unlawful. … Qualified immunity, moreover, is properly considered pursuant to a motion for summary judgment.

Turner v. City of Toledo

671 F. Supp. 2d 967 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 2, 2009

See Phelps, *975 286 F.3d at 299 (“The relevant, dispositive inquiry in determining whether a right is clearly established is whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation … In its earlier opinion, the Court rejected this argument by noting that “unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal

Brown v. Artus

647 F. Supp. 2d 190 · District Court, N.D. New York · Aug 11, 2009

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Accordingly, governmental officials sued for damages “are entitled to qualified immunity if 1) their actions did not violate clearly established law, or 2) it was objectively reasonable for them to believe that their actions

Estate of Phillips v. City of Milwaukee

928 F. Supp. 817 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Apr 24, 1996

The doctrine of 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 … When immunity from suit is sought by invocation of the doctrine of qualified immunity, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing the existence of a clearly established right. Liebenstein v.

Wingrove v. Forshey

230 F. Supp. 2d 808 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 13, 2002

Qualified immunity extends to individuals performing discretionary functions unless their actions violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id. … immunity because he violated clearly established rights.

Roberts v. City of Geneva

114 F. Supp. 2d 1199 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Sep 7, 2000

from damages under the well-established doctrine of qualified immunity. … Because Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that Lindsey, Motley, and Barney violated clearly established law, the court finds that Lindsey, Motley, and Barney are entitled to qualified immunity.

Byford v. Stephens

299 F. Supp. 2d 1253 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Nov 7, 2003

“Clearly Established” Law In the , alternative, even if it could be said that Officer Stephens lacked arguable probable cause for Plaintiffs arrest, this Court finds that he is still entitled to qualified immunity because … For an asserted right to be clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity, “its contours ‘must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.