Case law

5 BOROUGH PAWN, LLC. v. Marti

753 F. Supp. 2d 186 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 22, 2010

For example, when a court may easily decide that the alleged violation of the constitutional right was not clearly established, there is no need to reach the constitutional question. Id. … Because of an absence of proof, Marti has not established that he is entitled to qualified immunity to shield him from liability for the Second Arrest.

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.

Congine v. Village of Crivitz

947 F. Supp. 2d 963 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · May 28, 2013

doctrine of qualified immunity. … “Immunity protects public employees who make reasonable errors in applying even clearly established law.” Vinning-El v. Evans, 657 F.3d at 594 .

Jones v. Sandusky County

889 F. Supp. 2d 990 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 13, 2012

Qualified immunity protects state officials so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Dickerson v. … (2) whether that right was “clearly established” at the time of Defendants’ alleged misconduct.

Cephas v. Booker

District Court, W.D. Virginia · Jul 21, 2021

right; or (2) the right was not clearly established such that it would not have been “clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.” … If the court concludes that Cephas has stated facts presenting all elements of a constitutional claim, then the court must also decide whether the contours of the right were clearly established.

Koller v. Harris

312 F. Supp. 3d 814 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 20, 2018

Qualified Immunity i. … For a constitutional right to be clearly established under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, "its contours must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates

Briscoe v. Jackson

2 F. Supp. 3d 635 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 24, 2014

Qualified Immunity&emdash;Officers Jackson and Carr Government officials are extended qualified immunity in actions brought under section 1983 “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”

Mann v. County of San Diego

147 F. Supp. 3d 1066 · District Court, S.D. California · Nov 23, 2015

established right, Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity to the extent that Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims rested on the Po-linsky examinations. … of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time the action was taken.”

Denton v. McKee

332 F. Supp. 2d 659 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 24, 2004

Qualified Immunity: The Individual Defendants also claim qualified immunity from the Plaintiffs’ action. … “Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

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.

Villegas

District Court, W.D. Texas · Dec 9, 2025

Qualified immunity is “a right to immunity from certain claims, not from litigation in general.”47 A defendant-officer raising a qualified immunity defense does not automatically demand a global stay of claims brought … immunity defense.53 This defense contemplates whether his conduct during the Second Investigation (1) violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights;54 and/or (2) was “objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established

AGI-Bluff Manor, Inc. v. Reagen

713 F. Supp. 1535 · District Court, W.D. Missouri · Apr 18, 1989

The Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. State executive officials who perform discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 suits. Scheuer v. … Because any violation could not have been apparent, Birkenholz’s due process right was not ‘clearly established’ for qualified immunity purposes.” 857 F.2d at 1218 .

Irvin v. City of Shaker Heights

809 F. Supp. 2d 719 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 18, 2011

Qualified immunity protects an official from liability if the official’s conduct does not violate “clearly established” statutory or constitutional rights that a reasonable person would have known were in existence. … The court therefore finds that qualified immunity is not appropriate because Irvin’s account supports a finding that the backup officers violated a clearly established constitutional right to be free from gratuitous beating

Brickyard Holdings, Inc. v. Beaufort County

586 F. Supp. 2d 409 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Dec 27, 2007

“Absent clearly established law that proscribed [an official’s] specific conduct, [the official] should not be subjected to suit. … Similarly, Austin is also entitled to qualified immunity on the issue of whether she forced Plaintiff to renew its letter of credit.

Iglesias v. Wolford

667 F. Supp. 2d 573 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Sep 28, 2009

Qualified immunity is “ ‘an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability; and like an absolute immunity, it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial.’ ” Pearson, 129 S.Ct. at 815 … In most cases, the qualified immunity analysis does not require factual findings, because the inquiry is a “purely legal one: whether the facts alleged ... support a claim of violation of clearly established law.”

St. Hilaire v. Laconia

District Court, D. New Hampshire · Mar 31, 1995

that the law on which plaintiff's claim was based was not clearly established when the defendants acted. … Accordingly, an officer is entitled to claim qualified immunity in a police misconduct case even if he acted unreasonably unless the law under which the officer's conduct is deemed unreasonable was clearly established

Swan v. United States

159 F. Supp. 2d 1174 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 21, 2001

Young-Millers’s Qualified Immunity from Swan’s Eighth Amendment Claim The defense of qualified immunity protects “government officials ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … The qualified immunity analysis then becomes a two-part test: (1) Was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established?

Maria S. ex rel. E.H.F. v. Doe

267 F. Supp. 3d 923 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jul 21, 2017

After identifying the clearly established rights at stake, the Court ruled as a matter .of law that a waiver of those rights obtained through coercion would not be objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law … Qualified immunity, shields government 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

Marrero v. City of Hialeah

581 F. Supp. 1207 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Mar 8, 1984

Stated another way, the Marreros can only defeat Rashkind’s qualified immunity by showing that the constitutional right allegedly infringed by [him] was clearly established at the time of [his] conduct, [that he] knew or … To defeat Rashkind’s qualified immunity, the Marreros must demonstrate the existence “of clearly established judicial decisions that make his action[s during the seizure] unconstitutional,” Rheaume, 666 F.2d at 930 , or the