Case law

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.

King v. Marmon

793 F. Supp. 1030 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jun 15, 1992

“The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that government officials ‘generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Once a defendant raises the defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff carries the burden of convincing the court the law was clearly established. Id. at 1460 .

Doe Ex Rel. Doe v. Massachusetts Department for Social Services

948 F. Supp. 103 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 8, 1996

Since qualified immunity applies whenever the asserted right was not “clearly established,” a threshold inquiry in any case in which the defense is raised is whether the asserted constitutional right exists at all. … Tetreault is therefore eligible for qualified immunity unless a reasonable social worker would have known that John had a clearly established right on May 3, 1995, to meet in private with his attorney.

Strong v. Board of Education of the Uniondale Union Free School District

789 F. Supp. 99 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 1, 1991

The defense of qualified immunity may arise in different contexts. … Even when a plaintiffs federal rights are so clearly defined that a reasonable public official would know that his actions might violate those rights, qualified or good faith immunity might still be available as a bar to

Watley v. Keller

District Court, D. Connecticut · Dec 23, 2019

A constitutional right is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity under § 1983 if “existing precedent . . . placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate … Just as a court may not reject a qualified immunity defense because “the right to be free from excessive force” was clearly established, qualified immunity cannot be denied in the

Traudt v. Roberts, et al.

2013 DNH 094 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Jul 15, 2013

Instead, “the relevant, dispositive inquiry in determining whether a right is clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity “is whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful … C t . 2088, 2093 (2012) (recognizing officer’s qualified immunity against such a claim since it is not yet “clearly established that an arrest supported by probable cause could violate the First Amendment”); Holland v .

Vasquez v. Doe(s)

District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 22, 2022

clearly established at the time it was taken. … The failure to warn Plaintiff about deployment of the Taser does not preclude qualified immunity because it is not clearly established that a warning is required in these circumstances, and in any event the fight “evolved

Fontanilla v. City and County of San Francisco

987 F. Supp. 1206 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 14, 1997

The relevant inquiry for qualified immunity purposes “is whether a reasonable government official could have believed that his conduct was lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information he possessed.” … Clearly Established Law The first step in deciding whether the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity is to determine whether the parties agree that the law governing due process was “clearly established.”

Keefe v. Adams

44 F. Supp. 3d 874 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Aug 26, 2014

Qualified immunity “Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability unless his conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ … Were Keefe able to establish a violation of his constitutional rights, Defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity because no violation of a clearly established right took place.

Weiner v. McKeefery

90 F. Supp. 3d 17 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 11, 2015

Applicable Law The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability if their “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Relevant to this case, an arresting officer is entitled to qualified immunity on claims of false arrest and malicious prosecution if either: (a) “his conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Ryan v. Mesa Unified School District

195 F. Supp. 3d 1080 · District Court, D. Arizona · Jul 19, 2016

defense, of ‘qualified immunity’ requires courts to enter judgment in favor of a government employee unless the employee’s conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … immunity because the post’s First Amendment protection was not clearly 'established.

Parker v. Town of Swansea

270 F. Supp. 2d 92 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 27, 2003

The officers, however, contend that they are protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Town of Plymouth, 191 F.3d at 23 (disputed facts precluded summary judgment on issue of qualified immunity); Swain v.

Rauccio v. Frank

750 F. Supp. 566 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Oct 29, 1990

Finally, defendants claim that as individuals they are entitled to either qualified immunity under Harlow v. … Government officials who do not qualify for absolute immunity may nevertheless, in an appropriate case, be entitled to assert the defense of qualified immunity which shields them from liability for civil damages insofar as

Radosevic v. Virginia Intermont College

633 F. Supp. 1084 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Apr 17, 1986

immunity. … organization was charitable, and thus, qualified to assert the doctrine of immunity from tort liability.

Diallo v. New York City Police Department

District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 18, 2025

Williams, 52 F.4th 51, 64 (2d Cir. 2022) (stating that “[a]lthough it is possible for a qualified immunity defense to succeed on a motion to dismiss, . . . … Wright, 386 F.3d 432, 436 (2d Cir. 2004) (“Nevertheless, we see no reason why even a traditional qualified immunity defense may not be asserted on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion as long as

Johnson v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 19, 2024

Relief under 2 A motion for reconsideration of a court order denying qualified immunity is properly brought under Rule 59(e). See Hanson v. … Qualified Immunity Defendants’ objection to the Court’s denial of qualified immunity fares no better.

Biedermann v. Ehrhart

District Court, N.D. Georgia · Mar 14, 2022

When considering the qualified immunity defense on a motion to dismiss, a court must determine whether the “complaint fails to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” Corbitt v. … Because of this uncertainty, courts in this district and others have upheld qualified immunity on the grounds that the rights at issue were not clearly established. See Attwood v. Clemons, 526 F.

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

Douris v. City of Henderson

District Court, D. Nevada · Jul 10, 2023

ECF No. 7 20 at 16–26. 8 “Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly 9 established statutory or constitutional rights … immunity based on the lack 2 of any clearly established right that they could have violated.

Caceres v. International Air Transport Ass'n

46 F.R.D. 89 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 29, 1969

Since plaintiffs do not contend that the action qualifies under Rule 23(b) (1) or 23(b) (2) for treatment as a class action, the principal issue is whether it qualifies under Rule 23(b) (3), which provides that a class action … If the antitrust immunity under § 1384 is unavailable, then it would seem that defendants do come within the well established rule of Klor’s Inc. v.