Case law

Piccone v. McClain

720 F. Supp. 2d 139 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 2, 2010

Because the court will find that qualified immunity applies, this memorandum will not reach the issue of absolute immunity. The First Circuit has a two-part test for determining entitlement to qualified immunity. … For the right at issue to be clearly established, the state of the law must be clear and the facts must clearly implicate the right at issue.

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

Rodriguez Narvaez v. Pereira

552 F. Supp. 2d 211 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Oct 26, 2007

Qualified Immunity “[Gjovernment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Thus, if this in fact was the case here, defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

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.

Dollar Loan Ctr. of S.D., LLC v. Afdahl

325 F. Supp. 3d 968 · United States District Court · May 29, 2018

was not "clearly established." … Afdahl cannot claim the protection of qualified immunity because relevant precedent clearly establishes the right to a predeprivation hearing before the revocation of a business license.

Pompeo v. Board of Regents of the University of New Mexico

58 F. Supp. 3d 1187 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Sep 29, 2014

Legal Standards Applicable to a Disposi-tive Motion Based on Qualified Immunity Resolution of a dispositive motion based on qualified immunity involves a two *1189 pronged inquiry. … Plaintiffs First Amendment Rights Were Clearly Established The remaining question is whether Plaintiffs First Amendment rights were clearly established.

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.

Geod Corporation v. New Jersey Transit Corporation

678 F. Supp. 2d 276 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 20, 2009

Qualified Immunity State officials performing discretionary functions are generally immune from liability unless their conduct violates clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person should … Assuming arguendo that the individual Defendants’ conduct violated a constitutional or statutory right, they are still entitled to qualified immunity because such a right was not clearly established at the time of the alleged

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.

Richards v. Southeast Alabama Youth Services Diversion Center

105 F. Supp. 2d 1268 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jul 21, 2000

An official is entitled to qualified immunity if he is performing discretionary functions and his actions do “ ‘not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … When qualified immunity is asserted as a defense, a court must first determine whether there is a violation of a constitutional right, then determine whether that right was clearly established. See Wilson v.

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

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.

Becerra v. Asher

921 F. Supp. 1538 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Apr 4, 1996

“Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” Mitchell v. … immunity because they would not have violated Juan's clearly-established rights.

Lewis v. City of Boston

829 F. Supp. 471 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 3, 1993

not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … In analyzing the defense of qualified immunity in this case, the court’s first task is to ascertain whether plaintiff has alleged, with sufficient particularity, that Officers Butler and Holland violated his 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.

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

Saquebo v. Roque

716 F. Supp. 709 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jun 30, 1989

We can conclude that defendants are shielded from suit by qualified immunity because there was no law clearly established in plaintiffs favor. The qualified immunity inquiry is ultimately a question of law. Mitchell v. … There is no clearly established law that using political reasons in hiring public employees violates any federally protected right. See Harlow v.

Yeshiva Chofetz Chaim Radin, Inc. v. Village of New Hempstead

98 F. Supp. 2d 347 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 12, 2000

defendant was “arguably entitled to a qualified immunity under Federal law” in the federal claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ). … The standards for granting summary judgment motions in the federal courts are clearly established in FRCP Rule 56 and federal case law, see Standard of Review Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c), supra, and