Case law

Staples v. Virginia Department of Corrections

904 F. Supp. 487 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Jul 19, 1995

Congress did not clearly state that state prisons would be subject to the ADA, and thus, defendants in Torcasio were entitled to qualified immunity “‘as long as their actions could reasonably have been thought consistent … Likewise, in the case at bar, defendant, VDOC, is entitled to qualified immunity.

ALPHONSE v. WHITE

District Court, N.D. Florida · Jul 1, 2025

immunity argument as to those claims. … Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 736 (2002) (“The threshold inquiry a court must undertake in qualified immunity analysis is whether plaintiff’s allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation.”).

Turner v. Virginia Department of Medical Assistance Services

230 F. Supp. 3d 498 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Feb 14, 2017

In turn, this begs the question: What qualifies as “the state?” To answer this question, the Supreme Court developed a two-part test to determine whether certain quasi-agencies qualified for state-action immunity. … The state-action immunity analysis presents three questions: (1) was DMAS acting with “clearly articulated” state policy in directing DentaQuest to terminate its agreement with Plaintiff; (2) if yes, does DMAS qualify for

Wilson v. Vickery

267 F. Supp. 2d 587 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Oct 17, 2002

Ultimately, a state actor is entitled to qualified immunity if his or her conduct was objectively reasonable in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time of his or her actions. See Wilson v. … Sheriff Cain has conclusively established each element of the affirmative defense of qualified immunity and is, therefore, entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

DiJoseph v. City of Philadelphia

953 F. Supp. 602 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 31, 1997

In DiJoseph I, I granted qualified immunity to Officers Mattiacci and Hairston because I found that the state-created danger doctrine was not clearly established law at the time the incidents in question occurred. … Hence, qualified immunity would not protect the trooper from suit.

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

Neinast v. Board of Trustees of the Columbus Metropolitan Library

190 F. Supp. 2d 1040 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 27, 2002

Defendants’ Qualified Immunity Defense Defendants Black and Johnson argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … The affirmative defense of qualified, or good faith, immunity shields “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Jones v. City of Topeka

790 F. Supp. 256 · District Court, D. Kansas · Apr 27, 1992

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The individual defendants, Douglas S. Wright, Ronald S. Miller, and Harry L. … “The test for qualified immunity is whether defendants violated ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Powell v.

Nelson v. City of Wichita, Kansas

217 F. Supp. 2d 1179 · District Court, D. Kansas · Aug 22, 2002

Qualified immunity provides government officials immunity from suit as well as from liability for their discretionary acts. Mitchell v. … The Supreme Court has established a two-part approach to determine if qualified immunity applies.

Lori Wash. ex rel. J.W. v. Katy Indep. Sch. Dist.

390 F. Supp. 3d 822 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jun 5, 2019

The Record Evidence on Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials "from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … To the extent that the claim is brought against Officer Paley, he is entitled to qualified immunity. Officer Paley's actions did not violate a clearly established constitutional "right to an education." Ms.

Schor v. Daley

563 F. Supp. 2d 893 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 30, 2008

a constitutional right; [and] (2) whether that constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” … The Tort Immunity Act shields the Defendant officers from liability for the state law false arrest claim for the same reasons that they are entitled to qualified immunity from the federal false arrest claim.

Liff v. Office of the Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Labor

156 F. Supp. 3d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 8, 2016

Qualified Immunity Defendants also move to dismiss on grounds of qualified immunity, which “protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … In pleading qualified immunity, Defendants argue primarily that “Liff has not alleged the deprivation of a clearly established constitutional right” because “the Complaint at best raises a garden-variety tort claim for

Holly v. Rapone

476 F. Supp. 226 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 31, 1979

Defendants May Rely On The Affirmative Defense Of Qualified “Good Faith” Immunity It has been established without question that prison officials and officers are entitled to qualified, rather than absolute immunity, in the … Nevertheless, the immunity defense would be unavailing if: (1) the constitutional rights allegedly infringed by them were clearly established at the time of their challenged conduct, they knew or should have known of the

Hester v. Redwood County

885 F. Supp. 2d 934 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Aug 6, 2012

A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity unless the right he is alleged to have violated is “clearly established” at the time of the violation. Saucier v. … Stat. § 626.91 , subd. 2, was not clearly established until the Minnesota Supreme Court overturned the lower court decisions and Hester’s conviction in April 2011.

Telepo v. Palmer Township

40 F. Supp. 2d 596 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 26, 1999

applicability of qualified immunity is well-settled: Government officials performing discretionary functions are “shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Under this test, in section 1983 actions, particularly those involving the Fourth Amendment, qualified immunity decisions require the Court to determine the currently applicable law, and whether that law was clearly established

Moore v. Wyoming Medical Center

825 F. Supp. 1531 · District Court, D. Wyoming · Jul 1, 1993

of qualified immunity.” … To rebut an assertion of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must (1) identify the right allegedly violated, and (2) show that the right allegedly violated was a “clearly established statutory or constitutional right[] of which

Nwaokocha v. Sadowski

369 F. Supp. 2d 362 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 17, 2005

Qualified “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials [in their individual capacities] from suits for money damages where ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Third, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, since their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Nelson v. Hernandez

524 F. Supp. 2d 212 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 11, 2007

Qualified Immunity Even if defendants committed the Fourth Amendment violations Nelson claims they did, they would be “entitled to qualified immunity if either (1) [their] actions did not violate clearly established law or … Where reasonably competent officials could disagree as to whether the conduct at issue would violate clearly established rights, the immunity defense is available. Malley v.

Pearson v. District of Columbia

644 F. Supp. 2d 23 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 23, 2009

Bush, 448 F.Supp.2d 198, 200 (D.D.C.2006). 12 In this case, the individual defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did not violate clearly established law. (Defs.’ … Having concluded that plaintiffs allegations do not show a violation of any constitutional right, the Court need not determine whether the right infringed was “clearly established” such that qualified immunity applies.

LIGHT JR. v. BLAIR

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 23, 2020

Defendants further argue that the claims against Defendants Blair and Kirkland should be dismissed under the doctrine of qualified immunity.38 Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages … when their conduct “does not violate clearly established 34 Amend.