Case law

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.

Lessley v. CITY OF MADISON, IND.

654 F. Supp. 2d 877 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 21, 2009

Royce is not entitled to qualified immunity for any of the surviving search claims. The test of whether a right is clearly established is objective. … For purposes of qualified immunity, the *902 district court decision in Gray does not clearly establish law, of course. See Anderson v.

Benjamin v. Fassnacht

39 F. Supp. 3d 635 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 15, 2014

A defendant bears the burden of establishing that he is entitled to qualified immunity. See Beers-Capitol v. Whetzel, 256 F.3d 120 , 142 n. 15 (3d Cir.2001). … A right is “clearly established” for pur poses of qualified immunity if “every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right.”

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.

Shankle v. Texas City

885 F. Supp. 996 · District Court, S.D. Texas · May 4, 1995

Even if the Plaintiffs stated a cognizable claim which could establish that either or both the Mayor and Chief of police somehow violated a Constitutionally protected right, these Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity … This objective-reasonableness test affords qualified immunity protection to “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” Malley v.

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

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

Rao v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corp.

905 F. Supp. 1236 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 16, 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 … The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has established a three part test for determining whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity: (1) whether the right in question was defined with “reasonable specificity

Moses v. Mele

2012 DNH 074 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Apr 24, 2012

A court engaging in a qualified immunity analysis must consider two prongs: "(1) whether the facts alleged or shown by plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) if so, whether the right was 'clearly … Accordingly, Officer Mele cannot defend himself by resort to qualified immunity.

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.

DeBauche v. Virginia Commonwealth University

7 F. Supp. 2d 718 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Apr 13, 1998

The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that government officials "generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … No "clearly established statutory or constitutional right” was alleged to have been violated. 6 .

Burton

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 17, 2025

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff establishes that (1) “the official violated a statutory or constitutional … When viewing the facts in a light most favorable to Burton, the qualified immunity question becomes whether it was clearly established that continuing to 70 Sherwood v.

Shipley v. First Federal S & L Ass'n of Delaware

703 F. Supp. 1122 · District Court, D. Delaware · Dec 30, 1988

Qualified Immunity. … To have acted in good faith, the defendant must prove that he or she did not know, or reasonably should not have known, that his or her actions violated clearly established constitutional rights.

Dupont v. United States

197 F. Supp. 3d 678 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 23, 2016

The Court must now decide whether CAMcare, and by extension the United States, qualifies as a charity and is immune from suit. … CAMcare was a defendant in a similar FTCA action in Young, and the court addressed whether CAMcare qualified for absolute charitable immunity or whether it was a hospital N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-8 and qualified for a cap on damages

Johnson v. City of Milwaukee

41 F. Supp. 2d 917 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Feb 25, 1999

Qualified Immunity Brown argues that summary judgment nevertheless must be granted on the excessive force claim based on the defense of qualified immunity. … 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

Rodriguez v. Coughlin

795 F. Supp. 609 · District Court, W.D. New York · Aug 12, 1992

The qualified immunity standard as stated by the Supreme Court establishes that government officials may be protected from personal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions when their “conduct does not violate clearly established … Accordingly, because the Fourth Amendment status of urinalysis testing was not “clearly established” in either March or December, 1988, when plaintiff was tested, the prison officials named herein are entitled to qualified

Jackson v. Russell

189 F. Supp. 3d 405 · District Court, D. Delaware · Jun 2, 2016

Qualified Immunity Defendant argues that he is protected by. qualified immunity from suits- in his individual capacity. … Whether defendant is entitled to qualified immunity requires a two-step inquiry: whether his acts violated a constitutional or statutory right and, if they did, whether that right was clearly established at the time of the

Scott v. Lazure

District Court, D. Connecticut · May 22, 2020

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 would have … “An officer conducting a search is entitled to qualified immunity where clearly established law does not show that the search violated the Fourth Amendment.” Pearson, 555 U.S. at 243– 44 (citing Anderson v.

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.

Rogers v. United States

696 F. Supp. 2d 472 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 10, 2010

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 privilege of qualified immunity, however, can be overcome when state officials violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Wright v.