Case law

Stewart v. Moll

717 F. Supp. 2d 454 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 11, 2010

Moll also contends that he is immune from the estate’s excessive force claim pursuant to the doctrine of qualified immunity. … violation has occurred or whether the constitutional right is clearly established.”

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. .

Strail v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILIES

62 F. Supp. 2d 519 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Aug 23, 1999

Qualified immunity In response to plaintiffs' claims, defendants raise the defense of qualified immunity. … Within the context of family law, courts have found some difficulty in determining whether a constitutional right is clearly established to the degree necessary for a plaintiff to penetrate the qualified immunity defense.

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.

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

White v. Frank

680 F. Supp. 629 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 29, 1988

The Court held that the defendant was entitled to the qualified immunity established in United States v. … First, Section 1983 must not be read to create any new immunities not clearly recognized at common law. Second, the raison d’etre for the absolute immunity rule in Briscoe is the quest for truth.

Doe v. Round Valley Unified School District

873 F. Supp. 2d 1124 · District Court, D. Arizona · Jun 7, 2012

Qualified Immunity Even if Plaintiffs had adequately pleaded causation against John Allen, he is immune from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil rights lawsuits unless (1) the official violated a constitutional right, and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the violation.

Prakel v. Indiana

100 F. Supp. 3d 661 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 30, 2015

Accordingly, there can be no dispute that Congress clearly and unequivocally expressed its intent to abrogate sovereign immunity for claims such as Mr. Prakel’s brought pursuant to Title II of the ADA. … To establish a violation of Title II, a plaintiff must show that: (1) he or she is a “qualified individual with a disability”; (2) he or she was excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of the services, programs

Oracle America, Inc. v. Oregon Health Insurance Exchange Corp.

145 F. Supp. 3d 1018 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 18, 2015

The Court then looked to the *1029 rest of the 1951 Acts in an effort to resolve the ambiguity and “to clearly establish the scope of the States’ more general consent to suit.” Id. at 306 , 110 S.Ct. 1868 . … The authority to waive immunity “must' be clearly expressed” in these sources. Id. (citation omitted).

Walthour v. Miller

795 F. Supp. 2d 317 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 10, 2011

The law regarding qualified immunity is well-established. As the Third Circuit stated in Lamont v. … Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity on the Fourth Amendment claim. V. CONCLUSION Plaintiff has not established any genuine issues of material fact.

Davila v. Northern Regional Joint Police Board

979 F. Supp. 2d 612 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 21, 2013

A government official, such as a police officer, will be entitled to claim qualified immunity from suit unless (1) the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right possessed by the plaintiff and (2) the right was “clearly … Because qualified immunity is not merely a defense to liability, but renders a defendant completely immune to suit, a court should determine at the earliest possible *627 stage whether a grant of qualified immunity would

Life Science Church v. Internal Revenue Service

525 F. Supp. 399 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 21, 1981

Economou, supra, firmly established the principle that with rare exceptions federal officials charged with Constitutional violations can claim only the qualified immunity from prosecution enunciated in Scheuer v. … The Court concluded that qualified immunity constituted adequate protection for officials who vigorously exercise the lawful public authority vested in them.

Kean v. Manchester, et al.

2016 DNH 022 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Feb 4, 2016

Qualified immunity “protects public officials from civil liability ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … “When a defendant invokes qualified immunity, ‘t]he plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that the law [the defendant purportedly violated] was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.’”