Case law

Marcavage v. City of Chicago

635 F. Supp. 2d 829 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 20, 2009

Qualified immunity is designed to shield government agents “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … So they too did not violate any of Marcavage’s “clearly established” rights under the Fourth Amendment, and they too are entitled to qualified immunity for their actions.

Abrazinski v. DuBois

940 F. Supp. 361 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 16, 1996

In considering whether the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, the question is whether the rights that underlie his claim were so “clearly established” that the defendants must have known their actions would violate … To overcome the defendants’ objection that they are protected by qualified immunity for their conduct of the disciplinary proceedings, then, the plaintiff must show that it was “clearly established” (i) that it was a violation

Starlight Sugar Inc. v. Soto

86 F. Supp. 2d 23 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Feb 14, 2000

Once a defendant raises a qualified immunity defense, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate that the defendant’s actions violated a clearly established constitutional right. See Guffey v. … Harlow establishes a two-part test for determining qualified immunity. First, the Court must decide if the law was clearly established at the time the action occurred. See Harlow v.

Strosnider v. City of Nampa

196 F. Supp. 3d 1159 · District Court, D. Idaho · Jul 25, 2016

Qualified Immunity Defendants seek qualified immunity on Strosnider’s constitutional claims. … Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from suit in their individual capacities unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

Bektic-Marrero v. Goldberg

850 F. Supp. 2d 418 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 7, 2012

It is this Court’s practice to decide motions for summary judgment based on qualified immunity only after the plaintiff has been deposed. … If, on the other hand, facts material to the application of the qualified immunity doctrine are in dispute, summary judgment is not appropriate.

Ratliff v. City of Shannon Hills

52 F. Supp. 3d 904 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Sep 16, 2014

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 rights of which a reasonable person … Accordingly, Chief Hale and Officer Lucky are entitled to qualified immunity as to Ms. Ratliff’s § 1983 claims, and the Court need not determine whether Ms. Ratliffs constitutional rights were clearly established.

Kaufmann v. Saari

889 F. Supp. 1105 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Jun 6, 1995

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … a violation of clearly established law. 472 U.S. at 526 , 105 S.Ct. at 2815-16 .

RBIII, L.P. v. City of San Antonio

686 F. Supp. 2d 684 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Feb 19, 2010

Even if the government official’s conduct violates a clearly established right, the official is nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct was objectively reasonable. Hernandez ex rel. Hernandez v. Tex. … Once a government officer pleads the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to rebut the defense by establishing that the employee’s allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established

Lacey v. Borough of Darby, Pa.

618 F. Supp. 331 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 20, 1985

Defendants invoked the defense of qualified immunity. … The Third Circuit held that the sole inquiry relevant to the qualified immunity issue was “whether Losch had clearly established rights to petition the government in the manner that he did and to be free of malicious prosecution

J.H. ex rel. J.P. v. Bernalillo County

61 F. Supp. 3d 1085 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Nov 19, 2014

Clearly Established Rights in the Qualified Immunity Analysis. … Fitzgerald, when the Supreme Court moved to an objective test, the clearly-established prong became a part of the qualified immunity test.

Thomas v. Calero

824 F. Supp. 2d 488 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 20, 2011

The doctrine of qualified immunity serves to protect public officials from liability in section 1983 actions insofar as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … A defendant may invoke a qualified-immunity defense if he can demonstrate that his conduct did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known” at the time

Thomas v. Zaharek

289 F. Supp. 2d 167 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Oct 20, 2003

Defendants may benefit from qualified immunity if plaintiff is unable to establish any of these three steps. … Clearly Established Even if the Court were to assume that Thomas’s due process rights were not satisfied through the numerous meetings and hearings conducted by Meehan and Zaha-rek, the next step in the qualified immunity

McGettigan v. Di Mare

173 F. Supp. 3d 1114 · District Court, D. Colorado · Mar 24, 2016

Qualified Immunity Únder the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary,'functions generally are shielded from, liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … Nevertheless, defendant states that “the law did not clearly establish that President Di Mare’s actions violated the third prong of-this test.” Docket No. 16 at 7.

O'Neal Ex Rel. Boyd v. Alabama Department of Public Health

826 F. Supp. 1368 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jun 22, 1993

State officials are entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have know.” Harlow v. … to qualified immunity. 18 .

Berberena Rosado v. Cordero Santiago

668 F. Supp. 72 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jun 19, 1987

The qualified immunity question as to this claim is whether it was clearly established at the time of the reorganization that any career employee transferred was entitled to procedural due process under the fourteenth amendment … and the sort of violation that qualified immunity does not protect against.

Bibbins v. City of Baton Rouge

489 F. Supp. 2d 562 · District Court, M.D. Louisiana · May 11, 2007

See e.g., Geter, 849 F.2d at 1559 (noting that “a police officer cannot avail himself of a qualified immunity defense if he ... deliberately conceals exculpatory evidence, for such activity violates clearly established constitutional … qualified immunity).

Komondy v. Gioco

253 F. Supp. 3d 430 · District Court, D. Connecticut · May 25, 2017

doctrine of qualified immunity protects 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 … take the action alleged by the Plaintiff did not violate any clearly established law prohibiting such action.”). .

Gotay Sanchez v. Pereira

343 F. Supp. 2d 65 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Sep 29, 2004

In terms of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, it has been clearly established *72 that, for Eleventh Amendment purposes, the Commonwealth is treated as if it were a state; consequently, the Eleventh Amendment bars any suit … Qualified Immunity Drawing on Supreme Court precedent, the Court employs a three-part test when determining if a public official is entitled to qualified immunity.

Tucker v. Randall

840 F. Supp. 1237 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 8, 1993

Under these circumstances, we do not find that the Defendants violated a “clearly established,” particularized law at the time of the alleged violation that would preclude a qualified immunity defense on this issue. … For this reason, Tucker’s deprivation claims are barred by the qualified immunity doctrine because he does not assert any “clearly established” law at the time of the violation that would support his individual claims.

Summers

District Court, N.D. Georgia · Dec 18, 2025

right and (2) the constitutional right at issue was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.” … For that reason, Sluss is entitled to qualified immunity as to the probable cause portion of the Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment challenge. , 884 F.3d at 1296 (noting the burden on the plaintiff to establish that qualified