Case law

Smith v. Burge

222 F. Supp. 3d 669 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 28, 2016

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … When evaluating qualified immunity, courts consider two questions: (1) whether the plaintiffs allegations show that the defendant violated a constitutional right; and (2) whether that constitutional right was clearly established

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.

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.

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

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.

Ying Li v. City of New York

246 F. Supp. 3d 578 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 31, 2017

“Qualified immunity shields law enforcement officers from § 1983 claims for money damages provided that their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have been … In short, “[e]ven if the right at issue was clearly established in certain respects, ... an officer is still entitled to qualified immunity if ‘officers of reasonable competence could disagree’ on the legality of the action

Barmore v. Aidala

419 F. Supp. 2d 193 · District Court, N.D. New York · Sep 7, 2005

Qualified Immunity Defendants next contend that Superintendent Aidala is entitled to qualified immunity because “his actions did not violate a clearly established rights and his actions were objectively reasonable.” … Clearly defendant Aidala participated directly in the constitutional violation and, as such, he is not entitled to qualified immunity. Pltf. Mem. L. p. 11.

Strachan v. City of Federal Heights, Colo.

837 F. Supp. 1086 · District Court, D. Colorado · Nov 17, 1993

The individual municipal defendants contend that they are protected by qualified immunity which shields government officials from civil liability provided their alleged conduct does not violate clearly established law of … . *1091 As a result, Officer Vallero has the burden of establishing that no material facts remain in dispute that would defeat his claim of qualified immunity. Id.; see also Powell v.

Wang v. State University of New York Health Sciences Center at Stony Brook

470 F. Supp. 2d 178 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 23, 2006

Qualified immunity “shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Schia-vone and Glass are entitled to qualified immunity. It was objectively reasonable for Drs. Sehiavone and Glass to believe that their acts did not violate any clearly established rights of Plaintiff.

Walton v. DIVISION OF REVENUE, FOR STATE OF DEL.

961 F. Supp. 97 · District Court, D. Delaware · Apr 1, 1997

violated is not “clearly established” in the more particularized manner required. … in issuing the Notice in this case are properly examined under the qualified immunity doctrine.

Field Day, LLC v. County of Suffolk

799 F. Supp. 2d 205 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 28, 2011

“Government actors have qualified immunity to § 1983 claims ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Bolmer v. … Thus, “[a] qualified immunity defense is established if (a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that his action did not violate

Menebhi v. Mattos

183 F. Supp. 2d 490 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Feb 11, 2002

not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … of qualified immunity.

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 .

Bloomingburg Jewish Education Center v. Village of Bloomingburg

111 F. Supp. 3d 459 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 9, 2015

Herrmann also argues that he is not alleged to have violated a clearly established federal right, and therefore the claims against him should be dismissed under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Thus, Herrmann is not alleged to have violated a clearly established federal right, and he is therefore entitled to qualified immunity from suit.

Hedgpeth v. Rahim

213 F. Supp. 3d 211 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 3, 2016

That case was easy: no qualified immunity. … Because the Court cannot say that a reasonable officer would have realized a takedown maneuver in these circumstances violated clearly established law, Rahim is entitled to qualified immunity. C.

Yohn v. Coleman

639 F. Supp. 2d 776 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 16, 2009

The doctrine of 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 … was clearly established.

Prison Legal News v. Lehman

272 F. Supp. 2d 1151 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 17, 2003

The individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … The Court also finds that a prisoner's liberty interest in uncensored communication by catalog and non-subscription bulk mail was not so clearly established as to preclude qualified immunity for the individual defendants

Giraldo v. City of Hollywood Florida

142 F. Supp. 3d 1292 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Oct 19, 2015

The Officers argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity, and so Counts I and II should be dismissed. … The Officers also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity as to Count IV.

Flournoy v. Colbenson

37 F. Supp. 3d 971 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 15, 2014

Second, it must be determined whether the right was clearly established at the time of the conduct alleged. … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987) (even dicta may clearly establish a right); see also Hanes, 578 F.3d at 496 .

Haywood v. Nye

999 F. Supp. 1451 · District Court, D. Utah · Mar 24, 1998

Nye’s claim of absolute immunity is denied. VIII. Qualified Immunity. … Therefore, Nye may not have qualified immunity for her violation of clearly established law unless she can show extraordinary circumstances which would nevertheless make her actions objectively reasonable.