Case law

Occupy Nashville v. Haslam

949 F. Supp. 2d 777 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Jun 12, 2013

defenses,” such as absolute immunity and/or qualified immunity. … QUALIFIED IMMUNITY A.

Hill v. Selsky

487 F. Supp. 2d 340 · District Court, W.D. New York · May 7, 2007

To establish qualified immunity, a defendant must show “either ‘(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 … Oct. 20, 2006) (“an officer’s violation of clearly established state law is not enough to overcome qualified immunity in a § 1983 suit.

White v. Bagshaw

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 13, 2026

Overcoming a claim of qualified immunity requires a plaintiff to show both “[1] that an official violated a constitutional right and [2] that the right was clearly established at the time of the violation.” Doe v. … Bagshaw claims qualified immunity over the supervisor liability claim, so White must again show both a violation of a constitutional right and that the asserted right was clearly established.

John Doe v. Pa. State Univ.

336 F. Supp. 3d 441 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 21, 2018

Whether the Individual Defendants Are Entitled to Qualified Immunity Mr. Shaha, Ms. Feldbaum, and Mr. Peters argue that Mr. Doe's claim against them should be dismissed on qualified immunity grounds. … Roe was "clearly established." 70 Therefore, this Court will dismiss the individual capacity claims against Mr. Shaha, Ms. Feldbaum, and Mr. Peters. 71 III. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, Mr.

TLC Development, Inc. v. Town of Branford

855 F. Supp. 555 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 8, 1994

Town of Elsmere, 771 F.Supp. 646 (D.Del.1991). 3) Qualified Immunity A finding of arbitrariness not only establishes a due process violation but precludes a defense of qualified immunity. … An equal possibility might have been protection of the town’s established merchants 5 but that would not necessarily have also been reflective of a intent to hurt plaintiff in the process.

Huling v. City of Los Banos

869 F. Supp. 2d 1139 · District Court, E.D. California · Apr 19, 2012

. (3) Was the Right Asserted Clearly Established? … clearly established.

Reinhardt v. Kopcow

66 F. Supp. 3d 1348 · District Court, D. Colorado · Sep 4, 2014

Qualified Immunity “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 … Post, 574 F.3d 1294, 1300 (10th Cir.2009) (qualified immunity places the burden on the plaintiff to show that the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation).

Gavrilles v. O'CONNOR

611 F. Supp. 210 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 17, 1985

The case is now before the Court on defendants’ motion for summary judgment, which raises *211 the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. Under Harlow v. … The impermissibility of retaliating against an employee for engaging in union activities was clearly established by 1982.

Wells v. Cole

355 F. Supp. 3d 841 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Nov 30, 2018

that right was clearly established at the time of the employee's firing." … Regarding step two of the qualified immunity analysis, "[f]or a constitutional right to be clearly established, its contours 'must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates

Jenkins v. Town of Vardaman

899 F. Supp. 2d 526 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Oct 22, 2012

If the plaintiff fails to state a constitutional claim or if the defendant’s conduct was objectively reasonable under clearly established law, then the governmental official is entitled to qualified immunity. Id. … this defense by establishing that the official’s allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law.”

ESTATE OF ROSENBAUM BY PLOTKIN v. City of New York

975 F. Supp. 206 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 22, 1997

Was this Right Clearly Established? … This “clearly established” linchpin for determining the applicability of the qualified immunity defense transcends the viability of the § 1983 claim. See Gomez, 446 U.S. at 640 , 100 S.Ct. at 1923-1924 .

Koistra v. Cnty. of San Diego

310 F. Supp. 3d 1066 · District Court, S.D. California · Apr 19, 2018

Qualified Immunity Defendant Vail asserts the affirmative defense of qualified immunity applies to him. Plaintiff opposes. … Mendoza , 27 F.3d at 1361 (affirming district court's denial of qualified immunity where law was clearly established, but officer's conduct was not objectively reasonable).

Eriakha

District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Jan 7, 2026

To rebut a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff must have “alleged a violation of a constitutional right and whether the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the alleged violation.” Cope v. … Sheehan, 575 U.S. 600, 613 (2015) (“Qualified immunity is no immunity at all if clearly established law can simply be defined as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.”).

Surratt v. McClaran

234 F. Supp. 3d 815 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Mar 3, 2016

Qualified Immunity: Section 1983 Claims against Individual Defendants in their Individual Capacities Defendants argue that Caver, Stevens, and McClaran are entitled to qualified immunity from Section 1983 claims brought against … “Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’”

Issaenko v. University of Minnesota

57 F. Supp. 3d 985 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Sep 30, 2014

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … “A Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal based on qualified immunity is appropriate when the immunity is established on the face of the complaint.” Dornheim v.

May v. Strain

55 F. Supp. 3d 885 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Oct 21, 2014

bears the burden of negating qualified immunity “by establishing a genuine fact issue as to whether the [officers’] *897 allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law.” 103 However, all inferences are drawn … This requirement establishes a high bar.” 107 When there is no controlling authority specifically prohibiting a defendant’s conduct, 'the law is not clearly established for the purposes of defeating qualified immunity. 108

Martin-Mcfarlane v. City of Phila.

299 F. Supp. 3d 658 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 26, 2017

immunity falls to the official claiming it as a defense." 36 Establishing qualified immunity involves a two-step inquiry. … to be resolved before determining whether [a] defendant's conduct violated a clearly established right." 44 A decision as to qualified immunity now, therefore, is premature. 45 2.

Maguire v. Municipality of Old Orchard Beach

783 F. Supp. 1475 · District Court, D. Maine · Feb 18, 1992

The Court concluded that: [T]o win summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity, defendants must establish either that the law establishing the right allegedly violated was not clearly established, or that, in light … In this regard, the First Circuit has delineated certain “clearly established” constitutional rights in the context of qualified immunity. See, e.g., Amsden v.

Brown v. City of Hous.

297 F. Supp. 3d 748 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Dec 26, 2017

"To be 'clearly established' for purposes of qualified immunity, 'the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.' " Id. … "Thus, Mitchell 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 subject to immediate appeal."

Therrien v. Town of Jay

483 F. Supp. 2d 19 · District Court, D. Maine · Apr 6, 2007

Therrien admits he "was very, very wrong” not to stop and that he "was not thinking clearly” that night. DSMF ¶ 43; POSMF ¶ 43. 12 . … Plaintiff qualifies this statement to say that Mr. Baldridge was not in a position to see what was occurring. POSMF ¶ 120. Be this as it may, it remains implausible' that Mr.