Case law

R.S. ex rel. S.S. v. Minnewaska Area School District No. 2149

894 F. Supp. 2d 1128 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Sep 6, 2012

Qualified Immunity 1. … As R.S.’s right to speak as alleged without school interference was clearly established, the Court will deny the school defendants’ motion for qualified immunity at this early stage. 3.

Harville v. Texas A & M University

833 F. Supp. 2d 645 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jun 8, 2011

They assert that all three of the defendant employees are protected by qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity Additionally, the Court grants the defendants’ motion regarding Ryan, Mortensen and Maes because they are shielded by qualified immunity.

Dodge v. Shoemaker

695 F. Supp. 2d 1127 · District Court, D. Colorado · Mar 11, 2010

“Such immunity is qualified in that it does not obtain when otherwise immune officials violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Armijo v. … In the context of determining whether there is a violation of a clearly established right to overcome qualified immunity, purpose rather than knowledge is required to impose ... liability on the subordinate for unconstitutional

DiStiso Ex Rel. DiStiso v. Town of Wolcott

750 F. Supp. 2d 425 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Oct 19, 2010

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials performing a discretionary function “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … When considering a qualified immunity defense, a court must determine whether the right at issue was clearly established “in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad general proposition.”

Zawacki v. City of Colorado Springs

759 F. Supp. 655 · District Court, D. Colorado · Mar 20, 1991

Qualified immunity will shield deputies Smith and Mistretta and officers Duffy and Dancy from personal liability under Section 1983 unless Plaintiff can show that their actions violated clearly established statutory or constitutional … Therefore, they did not violate any clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known and they are qualifiedly immune from this lawsuit.

Galvan v. Carothers

855 F. Supp. 285 · District Court, D. Alaska · Apr 21, 1994

However, the regulation does not create a “clearly established” constitutional right for purposes of qualified immunity. Davis v. … Plaintiff does not attempt to explain why her right not to be placed in an all male prison wing was clearly established such that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Wagner

District Court, N.D. New York · Jan 8, 2026

Qualified Immunity Defendants contend that the federal claims against Connell are barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity. (Dkt. No. 31-6, at 10). … Wright, 386 F.3d 432, 434, 436 (2d Cir. 2004) (describing a defendant's burden of establishing a qualified immunity defense in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion as a “formidable hurdle”).

Hamilton v. City of Olympia

687 F. Supp. 2d 1231 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 8, 2009

were clearly established. … were clearly established at the time of the injury.

Morgan v. Plano Independent School District

612 F. Supp. 2d 750 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Mar 31, 2009

Ultimately, the individuals are entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct was objectively reasonable in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time of their actions. Id. at 323 . … Public officials acting within the scope of their official duties enjoy the protection of qualified immunity to the extent their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights. Chiu v. Plano Indep.

Ward v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

161 F.R.D. 38 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 22, 1995

, entitled to only a qualified immunity since no mental impressions, conclusions, or legal theories of the attorney are implicated. … The qualified immunity can be overcome by a showing of substantial need.

Lorusso v. Borer

359 F. Supp. 2d 121 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Feb 28, 2005

See, e.g., Gordon, 934 F.Supp. at 82 (“It has [ ] been clearly established that in order for legislative immunity to attach, the acts complained of must not only be substantively legislative but also proeedurally legislative … ; (2) Was the violated right clearly established at the time of the conduct?

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

Ford v. Dowd

772 F. Supp. 451 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Sep 20, 1991

Wilson’s motion for qualified immunity. … A government official is entitled to qualified immunity whenever his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Farkarlun v. Hanning

855 F. Supp. 2d 906 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Mar 2, 2012

Khazraeinazmpour is entitled to qualified immunity because her search of Farkarlun did not violate any clearly established law. … Therefore, to the extent that continuing the search at the First Precinct was unconstitutional, that constitutional norm has not yet been clearly established, and the searching officer is entitled to qualified immunity.

Anderson v. City of Columbus, Georgia

374 F. Supp. 2d 1240 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Jun 23, 2005

Defendant Turner is immune from suit unless she violated “ ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Hutton v. … None of Plaintiffs argument regarding qualified immunity ever mentions the Fourth Amendment, how Defendants’ conduct constituted an unreasonable search or seizure, or how the law was cléarly established that Plaintiff had

Doe v. Thomas

604 F. Supp. 1508 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 21, 1985

Defendants have established, as a matter of law, both prongs of the qualified immunity test. First, taking someone into custody is clearly within the scope of a police officer’s authority. … The second question of the Harlow qualified immunity test, requiring a demonstration of a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, is answered in the negative.

Hudson v. Burke

617 F. Supp. 1501 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 24, 1985

Alderman Burke’s Qualified Immunity Does Bar Plaintiffs’ Claims For Damages. … The standard for qualified immunity was set down in Harlow v.

EH ex rel. Moore v. City of Miramar

111 F. Supp. 3d 1307 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jun 19, 2015

The Eleventh Circuit found that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity since the use of deadly force was reasonable under the facts and circumstances of the case and there was no clearly established law at the time … established prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Fleck v. Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania

995 F. Supp. 2d 390 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 5, 2014

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects governmental officials when they are sued in their personal capacity “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … The contours of clearly established rights in the context of qualified immunity are not always sharply drawn.

JOHN DOES 1-100 v. Boyd

613 F. Supp. 1514 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Jul 31, 1985

Qualified Immunity The individual defendants claim that they are entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). … Until recently, the decisions of the United States Supreme Court had established that the qualified immunity defense had both objective and subjective components. Under the Court’s decision in Wood v.