Case law

HODINKA v. Delaware County

759 F. Supp. 2d 603 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 7, 2011

These defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity. 1. … Legal Standard The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that government officials are immune from suits for civil damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Trejo v. Wattles

654 F. Supp. 1143 · District Court, D. Colorado · Feb 25, 1987

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Whether defendants Wattles and Carter are entitled to qualified immunity is determinative in deciding whether they are subject to liability under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 . … They have been held, however, to be entitled to a qualified or good faith immunity under Section 1983 unless they violate a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which they knew or should have known at

United States v. Pisarski

274 F. Supp. 3d 1032 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 8, 2017

Expanding upon the CUA, California’s Medical Marijuana Program Act (“MMPA”) provides immunity from criminal sanction for, among other things, the .possession, cultivation, possession for sale, and sale of marijuana to “qualified … of each collective would be at the time, of any future sale such that their qualified patient or caregiver status could be established.

Baxley v. City of North Charleston

533 F. Supp. 1248 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Mar 11, 1982

Defendants Simmons’ and Bourne’s Qualified Immunity Defense. … The general rule of qualified immunity was first articulated in Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 , 94 S.Ct. 1683 , 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974).

Stratton v. City of Boston

731 F. Supp. 42 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 28, 1989

Although, as discussed in Part V, infra, the claims against Commissioner Roache individually may be barred by qualified immunity, such immunity does not bar those claims made against Commissioner Roache in his official capacity … This “good faith” standard shields the officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

Collin v. Rector & Board of Visitors of the University of Virginia

873 F. Supp. 1008 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Jan 3, 1995

Clearly the Department is an arm of the University and thus enjoys the same Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit as the University as a whole. … Since official capacity defendants, like municipalities, have no recourse to the qualified immunity defenses afforded under Kentucky v.

Davis-El v. O'LEARY

626 F. Supp. 1037 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 17, 1986

In addition, they argue that the prison officials enjoy qualified immunity. In Walker v. … If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail. Id. at 818-19 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738.

McIntyre v. Robinson

126 F. Supp. 2d 394 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 21, 2000

Defendants’ primary argument is that they are protected from liability in this regard on the basis of qualified immunity because, in the familiar words of the Supreme Court, their conduct did not violate “clearly established … McKinney in 1993, the right of a prisoner to be free from unreasonable levels of ETS has been clearly established.

Bauer v. County of Saginaw

111 F. Supp. 3d 767 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · May 28, 2015

Because Bauer did not establish that a constitutional violation occurred, this Court need not address the issue of whether McColgan enjoys qualified immunity from suit. See Salehpour v. … The plaintiff has the burden of establishing a statutorily created exception to absolute sovereign immunity. *784 Chambers v. City of Detroit, 786 F.Supp.2d 1253, 1272 (E.D.Mich.2011).

Verdier v. Borough

796 F. Supp. 2d 606 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 20, 2011

immunity because they violated clearly established rights of citizens under the Fourth Amendment. 10 IV. … On a motion for summary judgment asserting the defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff bears the initial burden to show that the defendant’s conduct violated the plaintiffs clearly established right. Sherwood v.

Kelley v. Wright

District Court, D. Kansas · Dec 9, 2019

the violation of a clearly established right to overcome a qualified immunity defense.69 Plaintiff’s allegations in this case are similar, and the Court finds that he has failed to … immunity and therefore has not met his burden of establishing that the rights in question were clearly established at the time.

Mick v. Brewer

923 F. Supp. 181 · District Court, D. Kansas · Apr 24, 1996

The individual defendants moved for summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity. … (The court notes that while the Tenth Circuit rejected the qualified immunity defense on the ground the law regarding excessive force was clearly established by 1992, it also explicitly denied the motion advanced on appeal

Hutchinson v. West Virginia State Police

731 F. Supp. 2d 521 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Aug 5, 2010

“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 rights of which … Accordingly, the pertinent question with regard to qualified immunity is whether, on July 8, 2005, the Summers test clearly established Plaintiffs right to be free from an unjustified 30- to 45-minute naked detention.

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.”).

Tilson v. City of Elkhart, Ind.

317 F. Supp. 2d 861 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 1, 2003

Qualified Immunity Even if a constitutional violation had occurred, the Defendants argue that DeJong’s conduct did not violate clearly established standards under existing case law and therefore he would be entitled to qualified … to qualified immunity.

Vanderburg v. HARRISON COUNTY, MISS. EX REL. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

716 F. Supp. 2d 482 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · May 20, 2010

In order to invoke the defense of qualified immunity, the “defendant official must initially plead his good faith and establish that he was acting within the scope of his discretionary authority. … If reasonable officers could disagree over the lawfulness of his conduct, then the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. Id. The officer’s conduct is viewed in light of the clearly established law at that time.

Pike v. Gallagher

829 F. Supp. 1254 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Oct 8, 1993

As this involves a question of fact, the Court cannot grant Defendants’ motion for qualified immunity on this issue. The right to an impartial hearing was also clearly established before May, 1991. … Defendants claim that the right to substantive due process review was not clearly established for a deprivation of an employment interest, and therefore, they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Johnson Ex Rel. Estate of Cano v. Holmes

377 F. Supp. 2d 1084 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Sep 30, 2004

LAW ON QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages in § 1983 actions “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … The law of qualified immunity does not require that a plaintiff demonstrate that her right to recover monetary damages, i.e., their remedy, was clearly established when the violation of her rights occurred.

Johnson v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 16, 2021

Qualified Immunity Finally, Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim. … Therefore, Defendants’ motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity can succeed only if the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity test is met. See Defs.

Ngwenyama v. Board of Regents of the University of Michigan

29 F. Supp. 2d 402 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Dec 9, 1998

When a defendant moves for summary judgment and claims qualified immunity, the burden is on plaintiff in a § 1983 action to allege and prove that defendant officials violated a “clearly established statutory or constitutional … a clearly established law.”