Case law

Kinsey v. City of Opp, Ala.

50 F. Supp. 2d 1232 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · May 19, 1999

Qualified immunity protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” Malley v. … This evidences a finding that no clearly established constitutional right was violated. See Dowdell v.

Bardzik v. County of Orange

605 F. Supp. 2d 1076 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 11, 2009

“Government officials who perform discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity only ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … This finding was clearly established at the time of the alleged retaliation. Accordingly, this Court rejects the Orange County Defendants’ argument that Bardzik’s claims are barred by qualified immunity. IV.

Jennifer Y. Ex Rel. Harris v. Velazquez

434 F. Supp. 2d 570 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 20, 2006

The next step in the qualified immunity analysis is “to ask whether the right was clearly established” at the time Velazquez allegedly violated that right. See id. The answer to this question is no. … Jennifer “may not escape the doctrine of qualified immunity by alleging a violation of a clearly established, but very broad constitutional right.” Bakalis v.

Malloy v. Coleman

961 F. Supp. 1568 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 9, 1997

of qualified immunity. … Therefore, the usual rule is that qualified immunity applies to those actions, unless Plaintiff can establish that Defendant Coleman’s actions violated “clearly established” law. See Lassiter 28 F.3d at 1150 .

Karasov v. Caplan Law Firm, P.A.

84 F. Supp. 3d 886 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Feb 3, 2015

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from [personal] liability and the burdens of litigation ... unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable … Accordingly, at this stage of the proceedings — where Plaintiff has adequately alleged the violation of a clearly established statutory right — Defendant Hennepin County is not entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs

Poindexter v. Department of Human Resources

946 F. Supp. 2d 1278 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · May 21, 2013

Accordingly, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity at this time. 5. … There being no argument to the contrary, and the court being aware of no such binding authority, the constitutional violation based on Hargray is clearly established, and Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Malik v. Tanner

697 F. Supp. 1294 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 7, 1988

As Magistrate Buchwald stated in her Report, the “doctrine of qualified immunity precludes a finding of liability when a government official performing discretionary functions can establish that it was objectively reasonable … for him to believe that his conduct did not violate plaintiff’s clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.’’

Durham v. Horner

759 F. Supp. 2d 810 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Dec 13, 2010

Horner has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, contending, among other things, that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Consequently, qualified immunity attaches when the government actor’s conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Naccarato v. Scarselli

124 F. Supp. 2d 36 · District Court, N.D. New York · Dec 14, 2000

Qualified Immunity The defendants also contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to plaintiffs false arrest and imprisonment and malicious prosecution claims. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields police officers acting in their official capacity from suits for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , unless their actions violate clearly-established rights of which an objectively

Santiago v. Semenza

965 F. Supp. 468 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 19, 1997

The defendant also argues that the plaintiffs claim is barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Even where *473 the plaintiffs federal rights and the scope of the official’s permissible conduct are clearly established, the qualified immunity defense protects a government actor if it was “objectively reasonable” for

Reynolds v. Calhoun

District Court, M.D. Alabama · Sep 19, 2022

“[Q]ualified 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 … Parsing more finely to avoid defining clearly established law at a high level of generality, the Court asks whether, under the facts alleged in the amended complaint and in January 2020, it was clearly established law that

Fiorenzo v. Nolan

755 F. Supp. 801 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 30, 1991

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “public officials performing discretionary functions are protected against suits for damages unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Given this holding the court need not address the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis — whether the constitutional standards allegedly violated were clearly established at the time in question. .

Teitel v. University of Houston Board of Regents

285 F. Supp. 2d 865 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Dec 31, 2002

they are entitled to either official or qualified immunity. … “Clearly established,” for purposes of qualified immunity, means that “[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.”

McArthur v. City & County of San Francisco

190 F. Supp. 3d 895 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 6, 2016

The qualified immunity doctrine 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 … To determine whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, the court must consider: (1) whether the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right and (2) whether the constitutional right was “clearly established

Kassel v. United States Veterans Administration

682 F. Supp. 646 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Feb 4, 1988

Defendants move the Court to dismiss Count IV on the ground that they are immune from suit because their conduct did not violate clearly established rights. In Pickering v. … judgment on the same count on the basis of qualified immunity.

Arditi v. Subers

216 F. Supp. 3d 544 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 25, 2016

Under the qualified immunity doctrine, law enforcement officers acting within their professional capacity are immune from suit “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … seizure is clearly established. 2.

Sledge v. Stoldt

480 F. Supp. 2d 530 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 29, 2007

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Because the Randolph rule was not clearly established at the time, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a Randolph claim. See Johnson v. Weaver, 2006 WL 2850493 , 2006 U.S. Dist.

Chambers v. Benton

District Court, S.D. Georgia · Sep 2, 2025

“The defense of qualified immunity completely protects government officials performing discretionary functions from suit [for damages] in their individual capacities unless their conduct violates ‘clearly … Therefore, they are also entitled to qualified immunity.

Johnson v. Collins

564 F. Supp. 2d 759 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 9, 2008

Defendant is not entitled to immunity or qualified immunity because Plaintiff may be able to show a violation of federal law. … Second, Plaintiff can show that this right was “clearly established.” Dickerson, 101 F.3d at 1158 .

Mrosek v. Kraatz

178 F. Supp. 2d 104 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Sep 30, 2001

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 problem is that “[t]he ‘clearly established law’ and ‘objective reasonableness’ facets of current qualified immunity doctrine tug in opposite directions where ... the ‘clearly established law’ itself contains a subjective