Case law

Strauss v. Alabama State Bar

520 F. Supp. 173 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Aug 17, 1981

The Alaska court recognized that the “practice of law by qualified persons is a ‘fundamental right’ triggering scrutiny under the privileges and immunities clause.” 620 P.2d at 643 . 5 Since the practice of law qualifies … The purposes of the clause have been variously stated as to establish a “norm of comity,” Austin v.

Fischer v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 24, 2025

Instead, those claims must overcome qualified immunity, which protects officials from civil liability unless their actions “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Accordingly, they are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

Buehl v. Lehman

802 F. Supp. 1266 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 16, 1992

Defendants have asserted qualified immunity from damages in their individual capacities. … Officials exercising discretionary powers are immune from liability for civil damages for conduct which does not violate a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have been aware.

Mpoy v. Fenty

901 F. Supp. 2d 144 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 5, 2012

Alternatively, they argue that even if the speech were protected, Plaintiff’s claim would nonetheless be barred by qualified immunity because his constitutional right to such speech was not clearly established at the time … so, whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Oliver v. Powell

250 F. Supp. 2d 593 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Sep 4, 2002

clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … “The threshold inquiry a court must undertake in a qualified immunity analysis is whether plaintiffs allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation.” Hope v.

Doe v. Division of Youth and Family Services

148 F. Supp. 2d 462 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 25, 2001

“The doctrine of qualified immunity ‘hold[s] that government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … However, far from being clearly established, the plaintiffs’ Rehabilitation Act claim is somewhat novel.

Whitson v. Gilberg

792 F. Supp. 2d 639 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 13, 2011

Qualified Immunity In addition to arguing that probable cause bars Plaintiffs claim, Defendant argues that the claim is barred by qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity bars an action against a government official where the conduct alleged “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Calvert v. Hicks

510 F. Supp. 2d 1164 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Jan 18, 2007

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if then-conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … The process for analyzing a defense of qualified immunity is well established: To be eligible for qualified immunity, the official must first establish that he was performing a “discretionary function” at the time the alleged

Williams v. Hayman

657 F. Supp. 2d 488 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 17, 2008

While Defendants argue that the Individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, they have not raised the defense that Title II constitutes an invalid attempt to abrogate state sovereign immunity to the extent that … The Individual Defendants also argue that even if such claims were cognizable under Title II of the ADA, they would be entitled to qualified immunity.

Fletcher v. SCREVEN COUNTY, GA.

92 F. Supp. 2d 1377 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · Feb 9, 2000

Although it is clearly established that an arrest without probable cause is unconstitutional, Redd v. … City of Enterprise, 140 F.3d 1378 (11th Cir.1998), qualified immunity applies “if there was arguable probable cause for the arrest.” Jones v.

Pierce v. Pemiscot Memorial Health Systems

25 F. Supp. 3d 1198 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Jun 13, 2014

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Defendants have not established that they are entitled to qualified immunity. 7.

Shauf v. Rios

313 F. Supp. 3d 1262 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Mar 2, 2018

To overcome this immunity, Plaintiff "must establish (1) that the defendant violated a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) that this right was clearly established at the time of the defendant's conduct." Dodds v. … With regard to Williams's alleged deliberate indifference, Plaintiff also defeats qualified immunity.

Roberts v. City of New Haven

210 F. Supp. 3d 347 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Sep 26, 2016

Indeed, the doctrine of qualified immunity protects police officers “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … clearly established law.”

Bornschein v. Herman

304 F. Supp. 3d 296 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jan 18, 2018

"[G]overnment officials performing discretionary functions generally are granted a qualified immunity and are 'shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … An officer is entitled to qualified immunity on claims of false arrest and malicious prosecution where he had " 'arguable' probable cause" to arrest or prosecute. Caraballo v.

Gilliam v. Fort Myers Police Department (Chief of Police)

District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 17, 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 … At the motion-to- dismiss stage, this means the Court must find entitlement to qualified immunity and dismiss “if the complaint fails to allege the violation of a clearly established right.” Id.

Pathways Psychosocial v. Town of Leonardtown

133 F. Supp. 2d 772 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 29, 2001

Qualified Immunity Under this doctrine, public officials are not liable under federal law for civil damages to the extent that their conduct does not contravene “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … The officials are “entitled to summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity if they can establish that reasonable officials could have believed that their actions were lawful in light of both clearly established law

Mercy-Peninsula Ambulance, Inc. v. County of San Mateo

592 F. Supp. 956 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 8, 1984

Pursuant to that program, the County established procedures to certify qualified ambulance personnel to perform paramedic services under the supervision of an “acute care hospital” within the meaning of Cal.Health & Saf.Code … They establish minimum training standards but permit counties to establish more exacting ones.

Osborne v. Howard

844 F. Supp. 511 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Feb 23, 1994

The test for qualified immunity is “whether a reasonable officer could have believed [the arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting] officers possessed.” Arn ott v. … However, [t]his does not mean ... that courts may always decide questions of qualified immunity on summary judgment.

Rivera v. Holder

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 29, 2009

"[Q]ualified immunity protects officials from liability 'insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'" … A qualified immunity analysis requires that the Court consider "whether the alleged facts show that the individual's conduct violated a statutory or constitutional right, and . . . whether that right was clearly established

Donohoe v. Watt

546 F. Supp. 753 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 3, 1982

When violations of constitutional rights are alleged, however, the immunity of executive branch officers is qualified. It exists only to the extent the official acted reasonably and in good faith. Butz v. … The second consideration is an “objective” inquiry into the extent to which the official knew or reasonably should have known that his conduct would violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.”