Case law

Scott v. Estes

60 F. Supp. 2d 1260 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Aug 4, 1999

As established by the Supreme Court in Harloiu, the test for ‘good faith’ or qualified immunity turns primarily on the objective reasonableness of the official’s conduct in light of established law: “governmental officials … Where the law that the defendant allegedly violated was not clearly established at the time of the alleged offense, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. See Stewart v.

Pappas v. New Haven Police Department

278 F. Supp. 2d 296 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Aug 29, 2003

” that might still support their qualified immunity claims. … contrary to established case law, the specific facts of this case preclude any finding of qualified immunity.

Flowers v. Seki

45 F. Supp. 2d 794 · District Court, D. Hawaii · Feb 13, 1998

Qualified Immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that “state and local offi *809 cials are entitled to qualified immunity if ‘their conduct [did] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Geidel v. City of Bradenton Beach

56 F. Supp. 2d 1359 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 9, 1999

established at the time of the Officers’ actions. “ ‘Clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity means that ‘[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand … The Officers, in their individual capacities, are, therefore, entitled to qualified immunity on Count I.

Cole v. BUCHANAN COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD

661 F. Supp. 2d 569 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Oct 1, 2009

Clearly, Virginia law establishes county school boards that have a wide breadth of financial autonomy and independent responsibilities. … The individual members of the Board then moved to dismiss on the ground of qualified immunity, which motion was denied. Cole v. Buchanan County Sch. Bd., No. 1:07CV00001, 2007 WL 4613039 , at *4 (W.D.Va. Dec. 29, 2007).

Rosemond v. Washington

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 25, 2025

Even assuming Defendants’ conduct violated his Fifth Amendment rights,2 as individuals, they are entitled to qualified immunity unless their actions violate “clearly established” law. McGinnis v. … And while Defendants asserted qualified immunity in their motion to dismiss, The Court construes Plaintiff’s constitutional claims as being brought under 42 U.S.C. 1 § 1983.

Driscoll v. Townsend

60 F. Supp. 2d 78 · District Court, W.D. New York · Jun 18, 1999

Qualified Immunity. Defendants also move for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields police officers acting in their official capacity from suits for damages under § 1983, unless their actions violate clearly established rights of which an objectively reasonable

Hughes v. Jones

40 F. Supp. 3d 969 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 17, 2014

immunity because the alleged constitutional violation will rarely—if ever—be clearly established.”)). … But the clearly established inquiry is not so nebulous, as Brokaw itself made clear in rejecting the defendants qualified immunity defense in that case.

Lines v. Wargo

271 F. Supp. 2d 649 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 10, 2003

The doctrine of qualified immunity insulates government officials from liability for damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established rights. Harlow v. … The analytical framework that district courts should employ in determining whether qualified immunity applies is clearly established: The Court explained that a qualified immunity analysis must begin with this threshold question

Verney v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission

881 F. Supp. 145 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 27, 1995

The test for qualified immunity was set forth by the Supreme Court in Harlow v. … “However, a motion to dismiss based on the defense of qualified 'immunity will prevail only if the actor’s immunity ié clear from the face of the complaint.” Roberts v.

Taahira W. Ex Rel. McCord-Salley v. Travis

908 F. Supp. 533 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 20, 1995

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials ... from damages unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” Elder v. … Also, as noted above, the facts alleged set out a violation of that clearly established constitutional right. On the issue of qualified immunity, the Camp case is distinguishable.

Rouser v. White

707 F. Supp. 2d 1055 · District Court, E.D. California · Apr 15, 2010

The court held that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity as to plaintiffs other claims for violation of the Establishment Clause. … For example, if the Ninth Circuit were to reverse this court’s decision as to whether Gomez and White are entitled to qualified immunity on the grounds that the law was not clearly established, this decision would not effect

Deffert v. Moe

111 F. Supp. 3d 797 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Jun 1, 2015

Alternatively, Defendants argue that the officers are also entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs First Amendment claim because openly carrying a firearm is not a clearly established form of expressive conduct (id. … Because Plaintiff fails to demonstrate the violation of a clearly established constitutional right, the individual Defendants are also entitled to the protection of qualified immunity.

Roberts v. White

698 F. Supp. 2d 457 · District Court, D. Delaware · Mar 26, 2010

(D.I. 36 at 4) Whether Murray is entitled to qualified immunity requires a two-step inquiry: whether his acts violated a constitutional or statutory right and, if they did, whether that right was clearly established at the … Because plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of showing a genuine issue of material fact as to the first prong of qualified immunity, there is no need to engage in a further qualified immunity analysis.

Decker v. Fish

126 F. Supp. 2d 342 · District Court, D. Vermont · Oct 25, 2000

Qualified Immunity With respect to Decker’s excessive force, assault and battery claims stemming from the incidents on August 9, 1997, defendants Fish and Hill raise the defense of qualified immunity. … “A defense of qualified immunity is established if ‘(a) the defendants’ action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that his action did not violate such

Green v. Bauvi

792 F. Supp. 928 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 8, 1992

Qualified immunity shields state officials who perform discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … Defense of Qualified Immunity Defendants assert that “any rights [Green] may have concerning the timeliness of his hearings were not clearly established at the time, and defendants are qual-ifiedly immune.”

Gros v. Port Washington Police District

944 F. Supp. 1072 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 26, 1996

doctrine of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity The individual defendants further move for judgment as a matter of law on the ground of qualified immunity.

Collins v. Goord

581 F. Supp. 2d 563 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 22, 2008

The defendants also argue that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because it was reasonable for them to believe that their actions did not violate clearly established law. … 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

Davis v. City of Camden

657 F. Supp. 396 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 6, 1987

Whether an official may prevail in a qualified immunity defense depends upon the “objective reasonableness of [his] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.” Harlow v. … Dell, 804 F.2d 796 , 803 (2nd Cir.1986) (clearly established in 1983); Ward v. County of San Diego, 791 F.2d 1329, 1333 (9th Cir.1986) (clearly established in 1981) with Fann v.

Derosier v. Balltrip

149 F. Supp. 3d 1286 · District Court, D. Colorado · Mar 8, 2016

To “survive á motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity, the plaintiff must allege sufficient facts that show— when.taken as true — the defendant plausibly violated his constitutional rights, which were clearly established … In addition, for a right to be clearly established, “there must be a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision on point, or the clearly established weight of authority from other courts must have found the law to be as the