Case law

McCormack v. Cheers

818 F. Supp. 584 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 1, 1993

to qualified immunity under Harlow v. … 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 statutory or

Shuman v. City of Philadelphia

470 F. Supp. 449 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 18, 1979

O’Neill and Clark both assert a qualified immunity from damage liability. *462 This qualified immunity is based upon such cases as Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 , 94 S.Ct. 1683 , 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1975) and Wood v. … Therefore, while the Court clearly ruled out the possibility that a municipality might have total immunity, the possibility of a qualified immunity remains.

Jensen v. Conrad

570 F. Supp. 114 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Aug 24, 1983

in violation of clearly established state law. 6 . … We must determine whether 1983 defendants are entitled to the protection of a qualified immunity when there has been a violation of clearly established state law.” Williams v. Treen, 671 F.2d at 899 . 7 .

Richardson v. Coughlin

763 F. Supp. 1228 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 22, 1991

By 1987, it was clearly established that inmates possessed a constitutional right to due process, Wolff v. … Thus petitioner has not shown a violation of a clearly established right and defendants have qualified immunity from damages on the First Amendment claim. 2.

Smith v. Central Dauphin School District

419 F. Supp. 2d 639 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 23, 2005

Furthermore, Defendants seek to assert a qualified immunity defense. (Defs.’ Br. in Supp. 20.) A qualified immunity defense may only be maintained by defendants sued in their individual capacity. … Government officials enjoy qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Johnson v. Hornung

358 F. Supp. 2d 910 · District Court, S.D. California · Feb 17, 2005

Saucier qualified immunity inquiry, whether the constitutional right was clearly established in the factual context presented by this case. … Qualified Immunity 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

Metro Charities, Inc. v. Moore

748 F. Supp. 1156 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Aug 24, 1990

For that reason, where the defense is one of prose-cutorial immunity, as opposed to qualified immunity, there may be no inquiry into the defendants’ state of mind. … Qualified Immunity State officials sued in their individual capacities enjoy a qualified immunity unless their actions “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Desales v. Woo

860 F. Supp. 1436 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 25, 1994

Qualified Immunity 8 Defendants maintain that they have qualified immunity for their actions. *1447 Qualified immunity shields officers who reasonably but mistakenly conclude that their conduct is lawful. Hunter v. … Bagley, 988 F.2d 868, 873 (9th Cir.1993). 9 In determining whether qualified immunity exists, the court must decide: whether, in light of clearly established principles governing the conduct in question, the officer objectively

White v. Tamlyn

961 F. Supp. 1047 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 31, 1997

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that protects government officials performing discretionary functions from personal liability unless their actions violate clearly established law of which a … City of Mayfield Heights, 955 F.2d 1092 , *1062 1095 (“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

Rife v. Borough of Dauphin

625 F. Supp. 2d 212 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 8, 2008

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that qualified immunity shields Individual Defendants from liability. … The court concludes that Defendants have failed to establish qualified immunity at this early stage in the litigation.

Vu v. Meese

755 F. Supp. 1375 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Jan 8, 1991

legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken ... … The plaintiffs contend that the clearly illegal act on the part of the variously named defendants which defeats their claim for qualified immunity is the enforcement of the Zero Tolerance policy.

Stager v. Hanshaw

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 4, 2025

complaint” is often necessary to fully and properly address a claim of qualified immunity. … Therefore, Stager’s allegations plausibly describe a violation of a clearly-established constitutional right, meaning that the Court cannot apply qualified immunity at this stage.

Drain v. Galveston County

999 F. Supp. 929 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Mar 30, 1998

Qualified Immunity Cooper also claims that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for conduct in the course of their official duties unless the alleged conduct violated clearly established law of which a reasonable public official would have

Bushrod v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 22, 2021

“Qualified immunity depends upon the answers to two questions: (1) Did the officer’s conduct violate a constitutional or statutory right? If so, (2) was that right clearly established at the time of the violation?” … risk of causing significant bodily injury” to an officer just moments beforehand). 28 For his part, Bushrod is nearly silent on the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity.

Lela v. Dart

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 8, 2024

Thus, whether on the merits or via qualified immunity, which requires a plaintiff to establish a constitutional violation, see Reed v. … Palmer, 906 F.3d 540, 546 (7th Cir. 2018) (immunity attaches where there is no constitutional violation even if right was clearly established), the defendants are entitled to summary judgment.

Fiordalisi v. Zubek

342 F. Supp. 2d 737 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 27, 2004

Because Zubek invokes qualified immunity, Fiordalisi must also show that there is a genuine issue as whether Zubek is immune. C. … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985)] clearly establishes that an order rejecting the defense of qualified immunity at either the dismissal stage or the summary judgment stage is a 'final' judgment

Pimentel v. Deboo

411 F. Supp. 2d 118 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Jan 27, 2006

Qualified Immunity Finally, defendants argue that they are protected by qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity “shields government officials from liability for damages on account of their performance of discretionary official functions ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Pollara v. Seymour

150 F. Supp. 2d 393 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 18, 2001

statute, the conduct in this case violated no clearly established right. … Therefore, defendants’ claim of qualified immunity is rejected. 9 V.

Ellis v. La Vecchia

567 F. Supp. 2d 601 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 22, 2008

Qualified Immunity Defendant argues that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because of qualified immunity. … 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

Farkas v. Ross-Lee

727 F. Supp. 1098 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Jan 30, 1989

The availability of qualified immunity is evaluated on the objective legal reasonableness of the challenged conduct in view of clearly established contemporaneous law. Harlow, supra. … have qualified immunity unless plaintiffs’ ‘rights were so clearly established when the acts were committed that any officer in the defendant’s position, measure objectively, would have clearly understood that he was under