Case law

White v. Fl. Hwy. Patrol, Div. of Fl. Dept. of Hwy.

928 F. Supp. 1153 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 10, 1996

Qualified immumty protects officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or Constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … This Circuit established a two-step analysis for applying the Harlow qualified immumty test. Zeigler v. Jackson, 716 F.2d 847, 849 (11th Cir.1983).

Nelson v. Payne

827 F. Supp. 1273 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Dec 29, 1992

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY DEFENSE Liability can only be imposed on the individual defendants if it is shown that they knew or should have known that their conduct violated a person’s clearly established constitutional rights. … The individual defendants have raised this qualified immunity defense and the Court finds that as a matter of law it should be sustained.

Wright v. Reynolds

703 F. Supp. 583 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Aug 18, 1988

Qualified Immunity Defendant Reynolds alleges that has qualified immunity from suit. … If the Defendant presents evidence which supports his claim of qualified immunity, then the Plaintiff has the burden of presenting evidence which contradicts the factual basis for qualified immunity contained in Defendant

Wesolowski v. Washburn

615 F. Supp. 2d 126 · District Court, W.D. New York · May 18, 2009

, however, I agree with defendants that they are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for their actions in that regard. … Particularly given the applicable DOCS regulations (which themselves do not appear to be inconsistent with inmates’ federal constitutional rights), defendant’s “actions did not violate any of plaintiffs clearly established

Shaw v. City of Selma

241 F. Supp. 3d 1253 · District Court, S.D. Alabama · Mar 15, 2017

On summary judgment, Officer Williams invokes the doctrine of qualified immunity, which “offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct does not violate clearly established … Even if plaintiff could make á factual showing of provocation, this argument would fail to overcome Officer Williams’ cloak of qualified immunity because there was no clearly established law declaring it unconstitutional

Pugh v. Goord

571 F. Supp. 2d 477 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 31, 2008

Qualified Immunity Defendants next contend that qualified immunity shields them from money damages based on plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims because their conduct did not violate clearly established rights. (State Defs.’ … However, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are granted a qualified immunity and are ‘shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Harper Ex Rel. Harper v. Poway Unified School District

345 F. Supp. 2d 1096 · District Court, S.D. California · Nov 4, 2004

on qualified immunity grounds. … The affirmative defense 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

Saad v. City of Dearborn Heights

876 F. Supp. 2d 925 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jun 26, 2012

“[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 … To resolve a qualified immunity claim, the Court must determine if: (1) the plaintiff has alleged facts making out the violation of a constitutional right; and (2) the right was “clearly established” at the time of the defendant

Santiago v. Feeney

379 F. Supp. 2d 150 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 26, 2005

immunity because “their conduct was objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law.” 40 For the relevant aspects of this case, Massachusetts law is more clearly established than its federal counterpart. … In addition, § 1983 and the MCRA employ the same qualified immunity standard. 41 This court, therefore, will begin its analysis by determining whether Eddings and Feeney are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to

Odom v. Kaizer

884 F. Supp. 2d 923 · District Court, D. North Dakota · Aug 1, 2012

Qualified immunity 1. … This is not to say that the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity is definitively resolved in Odom's favor. As the case progresses, the facts material to the “clearly established” prong may change. .

PATTERSON

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Dec 4, 2025

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 … Thus, the traditional two-step qualified immunity inquiry requires a court to determine: “(1) whether the official violated a constitutional right; and if so, (2) whether the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time

McCrea v. Zieba

955 F. Supp. 801 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Nov 19, 1996

Moreover, Judge Zieba argues that he was protected from personal liability by the doctrine of qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established in 1991 and 1993 that a Court Administrator could not be discharged … 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

Spilman v. Crebo

561 F. Supp. 652 · District Court, D. Montana · Nov 30, 1982

Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 , 94 S.Ct. 1683 , 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974), the Court held that state officials named as defendants in § 1983 suits possessed qualified or “good faith” immunity. In Butz v. … The individual defendants are entitled to the qualified immunity of federal officers under the test set forth in Harlow, supra.

Phillips v. County of Orange

894 F. Supp. 2d 345 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 11, 2012

Moreover, when a qualified immunity defense is asserted, a court should consider the specific scope and nature of a defendant’s qualified immunity claim. … See, e.g., Stoot, 582 F.3d at 922 (finding that in-school interview of child suspected of abusing another violated Fourth Amendment but granting qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that the officer could

Shehata v. Blackwell

District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Oct 22, 2021

Qualified immunity is a doctrine that shields government officials, including public university administrators, who perform discretionary functions from civil liability “unless their conduct violates clearly established … Regarding the pending procedural due process claim, Defendants argue qualified immunity shields them from liability because the law was not clearly established that a doctor has a protected property interest in his or her

Barkley v. Westmoreland County Children's Bureau

853 F. Supp. 2d 522 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 15, 2012

Qualified Immunity Finally, County Defendants’ claim that all of their actions were protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity bars the assertion of constitutional liability against government officials, unless they violated a clearly-established statutory or constitutional right that a reasonable person in the

Van Cleave v. City of Marysville, Kansas

185 F. Supp. 2d 1212 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jan 9, 2002

actions taken were not objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law.’ ” Id. … immunity.

Leibowitz v. United States, Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons

729 F. Supp. 556 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Sep 26, 1989

Government officials entitled to qualified immunity are shielded from liability insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … ill, is an action to which qualified immunity should not attach.”

Singleton Ex Rel. Smith v. Board of Education USD 500

894 F. Supp. 386 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jun 29, 1995

Second, the plaintiff must show “that the law was clearly established when the alleged violation occurred.” Id. … Analysis As of the date of this search, the law regarding the constitutionality of student searches was clearly established. In New Jersey v.

McIntosh v. White

676 F. Supp. 912 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Nov 3, 1987

Creighton, supra, this reconsideration will be limited largely to the issue of qualified immunity pertaining to Defendants State Patrolmen Jerry Reinold and Barney Phillips. … Defendants Remold and Phillips are entitled to judgment on qualified immunity grounds in that they have established as a matter of law that a reasonable officer could have believed that the arrest comported with the Fourth