Case law

HARTFELDER v. NEW JERSEY STATE POLICE

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 15, 2019

They argue that (1) their use of force was objectively reasonable under the circumstances; and (2) even if it were not, they are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate a clearly established … “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials who perform discretionary functions ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Walton v. New Mexico State Land Office

49 F. Supp. 3d 920 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Sep 12, 2014

Concerning the second prong for qualified immunity, Walton argues that her right “was clearly established at the time of the conduct in question,” because “it has long been established that ‘the First Amendment Protects public … Once the plaintiff has established the inference that the defendants’ conduct violated a clearly established constitutional *977 right, a qualified immunity defense generally fails. See Cannon v.

Sanchez v. Lane Bryant, Inc.

123 F. Supp. 3d 1238 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 17, 2015

“The malice necessary to defeat a qualified privilege is ‘actual malice’ which is established by a showing that the publication was motivated by hatred or ill will towards the plaintiff or by a showing that the defendant … Further, courts in California are divided as to whether managerial immunity establishes a qualified or absolute privilege.

Patrick v. Moorman

855 F. Supp. 2d 392 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 23, 2012

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 … Whether the Purported Right Was Clearly Established Even if we did not conclude that Moorman’s apprehension of Patrick satisfied the strictures of the Fourth Amendment, Moorman would still be entitled to qualified immunity

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.

Risner v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction

577 F. Supp. 2d 953 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 20, 2008

On November 20, 2006, Defendants filed their Answer, in which they raised the affirmative defense of qualified immunity for Haines and Hageman. (Doc. 5.) … "In the five years since it was decided, Union Gas has proved to be a solitary departure from established law.” Id. at 66 , 116 S.Ct. 1114 .

McGrath v. Town of Sandwich

169 F. Supp. 3d 251 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 29, 2015

Qualified immunity protects a state official against § 1983 suits unless 1) the official violated the plaintiffs constitutional right and 2) that right was clearly established at the time of the violation. Pearson v. … The Court declines to conclude, as a matter of law, that Officer Bondarek had qualified immunity or that Ty’s claim is without substance.

Hansen v. Schubert

459 F. Supp. 2d 973 · District Court, E.D. California · Nov 20, 2006

A law officer can establish qualified immunity by demonstrating (1) that the law governing the officer’s conduct was not clearly established at the time of the challenged actions, or (2) that under the clearly established … Defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the law applicable to these circumstances was not clearly established at the time of the search.

Lockary v. Kayfetz

587 F. Supp. 631 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 20, 1984

Although “absolute immunity defeats a damage suit at the pleading stage [,] qualified immunity is available only if the evidence shows that those actions were taken in good faith, i.e., with a reasonable belief that they … Although its individual directors are absolutely immune from liability concerning their legislative acts, they enjoy only qualified immunity with respect to any executive activity in which they engaged, such as enforcement

Knies v. Richardson

600 F. Supp. 763 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Jan 14, 1985

In any case, they, together with the remaining defendants, are protected by a qualified immunity “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The DOR’s authority to assess the plaintiffs’ taxes and the TAC’s authority to hear the plaintiff’s appeal were clearly established, and a separate hearing was not required to consider the plaintiffs’ frivolous objections

Woods v. Dugan

519 F. Supp. 749 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Aug 3, 1981

Of course, the parties seeking the qualified immunity must come forth with some evidence that he is following the good faith rules or orders of a court. In this instance, defendant James R. … The factual pattern unfolding in this case shows that this defendant is entitled to a qualified immunity, and therefore defendant's motion to dismiss will be granted.

Quinn v. Cunningham

879 F. Supp. 25 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 8, 1995

“extra hours” for “extra work” after filing his grievance; and (3) that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Finally, the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Willette v. City of Waterville

516 F. Supp. 2d 139 · District Court, D. Maine · Oct 15, 2007

Qualified Immunity Ms. Willette’s claims against Officer Sellar and Chief of Police Morris (in his individual capacity) must be analyzed through the lens of qualified immunity. … The First Circuit’s three-step approach to qualified immunity claims asks: (1) whether the claimant has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right; (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time

Waldron v. Spicher

349 F. Supp. 3d 1202 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Oct 5, 2018

SUMMARY JUDGMENT Spicher seeks summary judgment in his favor, claiming he is entitled to qualified immunity because the undisputed material facts show that he did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. … Anthony's constitutional right was clearly established .

Bernier v. Allen

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 20, 2020

Complaint plausibly establish a violation of clearly established law sufficient to overcome Defendant’s qualified immunity defense. … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985) (“Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal . . . .”).

Russ v. Causey

732 F. Supp. 2d 589 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Aug 5, 2010

Qualified Immunity Government officials sued in their individual capacities are entitled to qualified immunity from civil damages under § 1983 so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Next, assuming that the violation of the right is established, courts must consider whether the right was clearly established at the time such that it would be clear to an objectively reasonable officer that his conduct violated

Garst v. Brown

452 F. Supp. 427 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Jun 5, 1978

Sections 1985 and 1986 were not established to provide a general federal tort law and the Court deems them to be clearly inapplicable in the instant case. See Griffin v. … These individuals have a qualified immunity if they acted in good faith. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 , 96 S.Ct. 984 , 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976); Wood v.

Boyle v. City of Liberty, Mo.

833 F. Supp. 1436 · District Court, W.D. Missouri · Oct 6, 1993

are entitled to qualified immunity. … Government officials who are sued for damages under § 1983 for their performance of discretionary functions are entitled to a qualified immunity defense if they prove that their conduct “does not violate clearly established

Jalloh v. Hugee

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 24, 2025

“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 a reasonable person … Those undisputed facts entitle Vaillancourt to qualified immunity on each of the two constitutional claims Jalloh asserts against him.

Rinaldi v. City of New York

756 F. Supp. 111 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 6, 1990

Qualified Immunity from § 1983 Liability The standard for qualified immunity from § 1983 liability is the objective reasonableness of the official action challenged in light of clearly established law. See Anderson v. … For these reasons, summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity is denied. The issue of qualified immunity is preserved for trial. B.