Case law

Robison v. Via

636 F. Supp. 268 · District Court, D. Vermont · May 27, 1986

violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.

Steinbrecher v. Oswego Police Officer Dickey

138 F. Supp. 2d 1103 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 13, 2001

Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for civil damages “ ‘[if] their conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Wollin v. … standards were clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Richardson v. Smith

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 24, 2018

He is therefore entitled to qualified immunity in his individual capacity. … As the Court explained, Smith himself is protected from this allegation by qualified immunity—no clearly established law required him to institute such policies.

Gonzalez v. Lusardi

930 F. Supp. 2d 840 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Mar 12, 2013

be determined before trial whether the defendant did acts that violate clearly established rights. … Although the officers are entitled to qualified official immunity under Yanero v.

Ryan v. City of Detroit

977 F. Supp. 2d 738 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Oct 9, 2013

Accordingly, Plaintiff requests that the Court deny the officers qualified immunity for her equal protection claims. Id. Despite Falk and Schultz pleading qualified immunity in their answer, Defs.’ … When presented with a similar situation, the Sixth Circuit has stated that the failure to properly and timely present qualified immunity constitutes waiver of the defense: We need not address [the defendants’ qualified immunity

Verney v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission

903 F. Supp. 826 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 26, 1995

Qualified Immunity The individual Defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity for any actions they took with respect to Plaintiffs discharge. 11 The test for qualified immunity was announced by the … We have already determined that Plaintiff did not have a “clearly established constitutional right” in employment with the Commission.

George v. Carusone

849 F. Supp. 159 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 24, 1994

the legal rules that were ‘clearly established ’ at the time it was taken.” … Although a constitutional right such as the right to privacy may be well established, a governmental official may act under circumstances that do not clearly implicate the right asserted. O’Hagan v.

Dolihite Ex Rel. Dolihite v. Videon

847 F. Supp. 918 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Mar 21, 1994

Because defendants deny that they violated any of David Dolihite’s clearly established rights, the burden now shifts to plaintiffs to show that the legal norms allegedly violated by defendants were clearly established at … Qualified immunity purports to insure that government officials are held personally liable only for violations of clearly established law.

Puerto Rico Telephone Co. v. San Juan Cable Co.

196 F. Supp. 3d 207 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jul 25, 2016

the state statute “clearly establishes the state’s intent to countenance collective rate setting among motor carriers,” and remanding for findings as to the second prong); Cent. … PRTC admitted OneLink's paragraph 11, but interposed a qualified response.

Nerswick v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

692 F. Supp. 2d 866 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 19, 2010

Entitlement to qualified immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Assuming the qualified immunity defense is available to these defendants as private actors, they are entitled to qualified immunity on the ground that the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis must be resolved in

Bunker v. City of Olathe, Kan.

97 F. Supp. 2d 1241 · District Court, D. Kansas · May 31, 2000

the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields an individual government official performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as his or her conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Hernandez Acevedo v. Aponte Roque

684 F. Supp. 18 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Mar 25, 1988

The matter is submitted on defendants’ amended motion for summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity, opposed by plaintiffs, as well as on defendants’ motion to dismiss on eleventh amendment grounds. … The above analysis indicates it was far from “clearly established” that dismissing the plaintiffs once their terms expired would violate any law.

Wenzel v. Bankhead

351 F. Supp. 2d 1316 · District Court, N.D. Florida · Dec 14, 2004

Bankhead invokes the doctrine of qualified immunity, which protects public officials from personal liability unless they violate clearly established law. … The doctrine of qualified immunity, with its insistence, on “clearly established” law as a prerequisite to personal liability *1326 of public officials, is designed for cases of precisely this type.

Cropper v. United States

81 F. Supp. 81 · District Court, N.D. Florida · Nov 22, 1948

The evidence in the case clearly established plaintiff's right to recover for the injuries suffered by him, if this court has jurisdiction of the suit. … The evidence also clearly shows that Robbins had deviated from the instructions given him in the morning when he left the Army Base with the staff car.

Thomsen v. Ross

368 F. Supp. 2d 961 · District Court, D. Minnesota · May 11, 2005

Qualified Immunity Summary judgment, is appropriate when a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001). … Qualified immunity shields government officials from suit for official acts if their conduct “doés not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Merritt v. Mullen

49 F. Supp. 2d 846 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Feb 18, 1999

The Doctrine of Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … “Officials lose the protection of the immunity only if it appears that (1) they violated a statutory and constitutional right of the plaintiff, and (2) the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the acts complained

Reeves Ex Rel. Jones v. Besonen

754 F. Supp. 1135 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jan 15, 1991

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Even if the Plaintiff could show that the Defendants here did owe him a constitutional duty of protection against the assault by his fellow students, the doctrine of qualified immunity would shield the … assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.”

Williams, Quentrell v. Esser, Dane

District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · May 19, 2021

For that same reason, Lentz is not entitled summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. See Weinmann v. … Accordingly, defendants Blume, McClain and Edge are entitled to summary judgment on the merits and on qualified immunity grounds.

Rectrix Aerodome Centers, Inc. v. Barnstable Municipal Airport Commission

534 F. Supp. 2d 201 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 15, 2008

Clearly Articulated Policy To determine whether state action immunity applies, the court must first consider whether the Airport’s enabling legislation sets forth a clearly articulated policy of displacing competition. … established and enforced by the FAA.

Callaway v. Okmulgee School District 1

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Jul 11, 2025

clearly established at the time of defendant's alleged misconduct.” … Plaintiff may show the law to be “clearly established” by citing an on-point Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision, or by showing “the clearly established weight of authority from other courts must have found the law