Case law

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.

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.

Maraj v. Massachusetts

836 F. Supp. 2d 17 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 13, 2011

immunity, which “protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights....” 61 The relevant inquiry here, then, is … In Pearson , the Supreme Court grappled with a previously established two-step approach to determine whether qualified immunity bars suit.

Patterson v. Bd. of Probation and Parole

851 F. Supp. 194 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 9, 1994

Therefore, because the law forbidding such searches was not “clearly established” at the time of the incident, the officer in this case is entitled to qualified immunity. … I find that the constitutional right against arrest without probable cause is a “clearly established” one, and therefore defendant McGuire is not shielded by qualified immunity. Patzig v.

Waechter v. School District No. 14-030 of Cassopolis

773 F. Supp. 1005 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Sep 11, 1991

Finally, defendants contend that they are protected by eleventh amendment qualified immunity. … If the defendants’ actions were objectively reasonable as measured by clearly established law, then they are immune from liability. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982).

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.

Pickett v. City of Perryton, Texas

District Court, N.D. Texas · Feb 4, 2020

and qualified immunity. … Villarreal’s Use of Deadly Force Did Not Violate Clearly Established Law Turning to the second prong of the qualified immunity test, however, the Court concludes that Villarreal’s use of deadly force did not violate clearly

Verner v. State of Colo.

533 F. Supp. 1109 · District Court, D. Colorado · Mar 19, 1982

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The individual defendants also claim that the plaintiff’s § 1983 damage claims are barred by qualified immunities available to government officials. See generally Nachmod, supra, at § 8.01-15. … Accordingly, the qualified immunity defense comes into play only after the plaintiff has established a prima facie case of constitutional deprivation.

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

Farris v. Moeckel

664 F. Supp. 881 · District Court, D. Delaware · Jul 2, 1987

Qualified Immunity. Chief Bowers, who has been sued in his personal capacity, asserts that he is immune from suit under the qualified immunity doctrine established in Harlow v. … Chief Bowers’ Motion to Dismiss on the ground of qualified immunity is denied.

Anderson-Free v. Steptoe

970 F. Supp. 945 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Feb 27, 1997

The relevant inquiry in qualified immunity analysis is “fact specific,” Rodgers v. … to a defense of qualified immunity.

Tiemeyer v. Zaika

947 F. Supp. 1012 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Apr 23, 1996

established. … Child welfare investigators enjoy only qualified immunity. Id.

Schwartz v. Dennison

518 F. Supp. 2d 560 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 28, 2007

V.Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields state officials from personal liability if their actions did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … If either the right was not clearly established, or it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe the acts did not violate plaintiffs rights, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. 10 The first inquiry

Ramos v. Sedgwick County Sheriff's Department

785 F. Supp. 1457 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Oct 29, 1991

Beyond that, we hold that the facts clearly warrant a finding of arguable probable cause, and therefore a finding of qualified immunity. … immunity is clearly a defense to the civil rights action; qualified immunity ... is not a defense to the state charges....

Hooper v. City of Montgomery

482 F. Supp. 2d 1330 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Mar 16, 2007

City of Birmingham, the Eleventh Circuit held that in cases where qualified immunity is implicated, “some factual detail is necessary, especially if [the court is] to be able to see that the allegedly violated right was clearly … The doctrine of qualified immunity generally shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights which a reasonable

Miller v. City of Columbus

920 F. Supp. 807 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 28, 1996

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Defendants Mathys and Miller assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity from liability on plaintiffs section 1983 claims. Under the qualified immunity doctrine outlined in Harlow v. … The qualified immunity inquiry requires a determination of whether the contours of the right being asserted were clearly established.