Case law

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.

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.

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.

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”).

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?

Nelson v. District of Columbia

953 F. Supp. 2d 128 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 12, 2013

Second, Foster argues that he is, in any event, entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 8. … motions raising the qualified immunity defense.

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

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

Pelster Ex Rel. Boyer v. Walker

185 F. Supp. 2d 1185 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 27, 2001

qualified immunity.” … Defendants Are Entitled to Qualified Immunity Even if Plaintiffs could establish a violation of their Fourth Amendment rights, Defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity under the undisputed facts.

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.

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.

Shape v. Barnes County, ND

396 F. Supp. 2d 1067 · District Court, D. North Dakota · Oct 14, 2005

Accordingly, the Court will only address the defendants’ entitlement to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects Sheriff McClaflin from liability if his conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v.

HAMILTON BY HAMILTON v. Cannon

864 F. Supp. 1332 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Sep 13, 1994

actions violated a clearly established constitutional right defined in Wideman he is not entitled to qualified immunity. *1337 Applying the test enumerated in Courson v. … Lacking a clearly established right the Courson test cannot be satisfied, and so Brown is entitled to qualified immunity. C.

Page v. Mancuso

999 F. Supp. 2d 269 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 4, 2013

The Qualified Immunity Doctrine “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … the right was clearly established’ at the time of the violation.”

Gray v. Great Valley School District

102 F. Supp. 3d 671 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 6, 2015

The qualified immunity analysis involves two steps: “(1) whether the plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to establish the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time … Thus,, whether Trimble is entitled to qualified immunity turns on whether that right was “clearly established” at the time of her actions. Estate of Lagano, 769 F.3d at 858 . The Court concludes that it was.

Nichols v. Village of Pelham Manor

974 F. Supp. 243 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 31, 1997

The Court concludes, therefore, that the rights violated here were clearly established for qualified immunity purposes. Jermosen, 945 F.2d at 550 . … The fact that defendants violated well-established rights does not end the qualified immunity inquiry, however.