Case law

Brown v. Mitchell

327 F. Supp. 2d 615 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Jul 28, 2004

Therefore, Mitchell’s qualified immunity defense turns on the second step of the qualified immunity analysis: whether the right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of the violation. … Instead, the proper resolution of a qualified immunity defense requires an inquiry into whether the right at issue was clearly established in a more particularized and fact intensive sense.

Mujahid v. Sumner

807 F. Supp. 1505 · District Court, D. Hawaii · Nov 12, 1992

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from damages for any conduct that “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Under the Harlow test, a public official is only not entitled to qualified immunity if the right violated is clearly established. The policy rationale behind this test is two-fold.

Mercer v. Dora B. Schriro, Comm'r of the Dep't of Emergency Servs. & Pub. Prot., the Conn. State Police Union, Inc.

337 F. Supp. 3d 109 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Aug 28, 2018

Under the qualified immunity doctrine, "government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … In general, to overcome the defense of qualified immunity, the right alleged to have been violated must be clearly established at a level of specificity such that "a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing

Brown v. Rafferty

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 30, 2022

Qualified Immunity 2 Defendant asserts she is entitled to qualified immunity because she did not violate clearly 3 established law. (ECF No. 26-1 at 26.) … Plaintiff argues qualified immunity does not apply.

Posey v. Barnette

District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Jan 29, 2024

The doctrine of qualified immunity, however, shields individual government officials from damages under § 1983 “as long as their actions did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … For that reason, the Court need not proceed to the second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis to determine whether the officers receive qualified immunity.

Rush v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp.

747 F. Supp. 575 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 4, 1990

The Supreme Court has directed the federal courts to decide the question of qualified immunity before discovery has been conducted, based on whether the federal official’s conduct violates “clearly established statutory or … First, since plaintiff had no vested right to payment under the severance agreement, he had no “clearly established rights” of which Locke could have known.

Golian v. N.Y.C. Admin. for Children Servs.

282 F. Supp. 3d 718 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Oct 16, 2017

A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity in a § 1983 case "if either (1) their conduct did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known, or (2) it was objectively reasonable to … believe that their acts did not violate these clearly established rights."

Early v. Gardendale, City of

District Court, N.D. Alabama · Jul 14, 2022

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.” … “clearly established” statutory or constitutional right.

Clifford v. Jacobs

739 F. Supp. 957 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 25, 1990

If they were engaged, however, in executive duties, then they were entitled to merely qualified immunity, which would require the court to enquire whether their conduct ”violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional … However, once the official is determined to have only qualified immunity, then the court must determine whether he violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.

Harmon v. Preferred Family Healthcare, Incorporated

District Court, E.D. Missouri · Mar 31, 2022

Qualified immunity precludes suit against a government officer unless “(1) the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, establishes a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the … Louis, 932 F.3d 646, 649 (8th Cir. 2019) (“[Plaintiff] bears the burden of showing that the law is clearly established.”).

Bussey v. Phillips

419 F. Supp. 2d 569 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 10, 2006

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Defendants’s only argument on qualified immunity is that since Bussey had no clearly established right to a particular prison job, his removal from the Chair Shop could not have violated clearly established law and it was

D.R. Ex Rel. Robinson v. Phyfer

906 F. Supp. 637 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Dec 6, 1995

these defendants to qualified immunity. … The court notes that Plaintiff’s Brief to Show Cause, when addressing the qualified immunity issue, fails to designate the court of origin when citing cases that allegedly clearly establish the *642 Plaintiff's rights.

Mandsager v. UNIV. OF NORTH CAROLINA AT GREENSBORO

269 F. Supp. 2d 662 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jul 1, 2003

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability under § 1983 so long as the conduct of the official “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … To evaluate a claim of qualified immunity, it is necessary to determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right, and then determine whether that right was “clearly established at

Shibley v. Begin

District Court, D. New Hampshire · Mar 26, 1998

Thus the first step in the qualified immunity test is for the court to determine whether the right violated was clearly established. … Although most rights when cast in sufficiently general terms can be declared clearly established, the Supreme Court has stated clearly that the qualified immunity question must be addressed on a more fact-specific level

Better Broadview Party v. Walters

159 F. Supp. 3d 885 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 1, 2016

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability under Section 1983 for actions taken while performing discretionary functions, unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional … “A plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the constitutional right was clearly established.” Id.

Shultz v. Carlisle Police Department

706 F. Supp. 2d 613 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 7, 2010

Mistakes about the governing legal standard can be evidence that the right is not clearly established: “qualified immunity shields an officer from suit when she makes a decision that, even if constitutionally deficient, reasonably … As such, the qualified immunity defense is unavailable in these circumstances. C.

Bogle v. City of Warner Robins

953 F. Supp. 1563 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Feb 12, 1997

The Court further finds that the individual police officers did not violate a clearly established constitutional right of Plaintiffs, and therefore are entitled to qualified immunity. … Dicta is particularly unhelpful in qualified immunity cases where we seek to identify clearly established law.” Hamilton, 80 F.3d at 1530 .

Cook v. Parish of Jefferson

District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Jan 3, 2022

“[A] plaintiff seeking to defeat qualified immunity must show: ‘(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.’ … qualified immunity.

Nitschneider v. Miller

821 F. Supp. 1258 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 6, 1993

Qualified Immunity 4 Next, Miller contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity from any damages relating to the disciplinary actions taken against the plaintiffs. … Qualified immunity serves to shield officials performing discretionary functions from individual liability, unless their decisions violate clearly established constitutional or statutory rights. 5 Harlow v.

Labrec v. Meeker

345 F. Supp. 3d 1040 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Nov 7, 2018

In the alternative, defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity, which applies unless, under the plaintiff's version of the facts, the law at the relevant time was clearly established that the defendants … There is no doubt that this right was clearly established prior to Steven's suicide attempt."); Hall v.