Case law

Milbourne v. JRK Residential America, LLC

202 F. Supp. 3d 585 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Aug 11, 2016

However, JRK overstates Safeco’s reliance on the analogy to the qualified immunity analysis. Although the Supreme Court in Safeco cited Saucier v. … Ch Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151 (for purposes of qualified immunity analysis, courts look to whether the law was clearly established at the time of the alleged constitutional violation).

Redmond v. Baxley

475 F. Supp. 1111 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Sep 7, 1979

Unfortunately the Supreme Court has not yet considered the doctrine of qualified immunity in the context of an alleged deprivation of Eighth Amendment rights. 6 Yet the Supreme Court has held that the qualified official immunity … Gamble deliberate indifference would overcome the qualified immunity defense. 8 .

Thomas

District Court, N.D. Mississippi · May 8, 2026

qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields government officials such as Scott from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Hagan v. Quinn

838 F. Supp. 2d 805 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jan 19, 2012

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials who perform discretionary functions from liability for civil damages so long as their actions do not violate clearly established constitutional rights. … To defeat qualified immunity, a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) the defendant’s conduct violated the plaintiffs constitutional rights and (2) the violated right was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct

Solomon v. Emanuelson

586 F. Supp. 280 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Feb 29, 1984

a good faith defense is established. … established”, Harlow v.

Williams v. Dumkwu

District Court, E.D. Texas · Aug 14, 2025

In so doing, the magistrate judge determined that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Jd. … The Hudson factors ultimately weigh in favor of defendants, especially considering the surveillance footage, and defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Estate of Bing v. City of Whitehall, Ohio

373 F. Supp. 2d 770 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 22, 2005

Qualified Immunity As a threshold matter, this Court must determine whether the police officers in this case are protected by qualified immunity. … According to the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions are generally shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Greene v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia

District Court, S.D. Georgia · Aug 1, 2022

Thus, the qualified immunity issue turns on whether the Complaint’s factual allegations establish that a constitutional violation occurred and that the law existing at the time clearly established that the alleged conduct … For purposes of qualified immunity, the law is considered “clearly established” when the defendant has “fair warning” that his or her conduct violated a constitutional right. Jones v.

LeBeau v. Town of Spencer

167 F. Supp. 2d 449 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 2, 2001

Qualified Immunity The defendants argue, in the alternative, that the plaintiffs § 1983 claims must fail because the selectmen are entitled to qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional

Hampsmire v. City of Santa Cruz

899 F. Supp. 2d 922 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 28, 2012

“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 would have known … Typically, qualified immunity would apply under such circumstances. See Grossman v.

Broadwater v. Fow

945 F. Supp. 2d 574 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 14, 2013

Qualified Immunity Fow, Swink, Hockenberry, and Rush also assert their entitlement to qualified immunity. Application of qualified immunity requires two distinct questions. … The court may eschew difficult constitutional issues and award qualified immunity to a defendant if it is apparent *586 that the defendant did not violate rights that were clearly established at the time the defendant acted

Flohr v. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co.

821 F. Supp. 301 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 5, 1993

Clearly, defendant’s evidence establishes that to the representatives of PP & L, the tree appeared to be healthy and normal. Plaintiffs have presented no evidence to contradict this simple material fact. … Since the only evidence on the record clearly establishes that the land in question was open to the public and in fact used by the public, defendant is not precluded from asserting the immunity granted by 68 P.S. § 477-1

Warren v. Goord

579 F. Supp. 2d 488 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 30, 2008

Defendants also assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … "Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil suits for damages 'insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

Couzens v. City of Forest Park, OH

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 26, 2023

violated a constitutional right; and (2) the right was clearly established.” … “Once the qualified immunity defense is raised, the burden is on the plaintiff to demonstrate that the officials are not entitled to qualified immunity.” Silberstein v.

Knowles v. CITY OF BENICIA

785 F. Supp. 2d 936 · District Court, E.D. California · Mar 25, 2011

Qualified Immunity Hartig did not formally move for summary judgment on his defense of qualified immunity, but he opposes the instant motion in part on qualified immunity grounds. … established in 2003 and the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity on the basis of that exception.

Justice v. MACHTINGER

733 F. Supp. 2d 495 · District Court, D. Delaware · Aug 16, 2010

) whether that right was clearly established prior to the violation. … Because plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of showing a genuine issue of material fact as to the first prong of the qualified immunity inquiry, there is no need to engage in a further qualified immunity analysis.

McCue v. City of Rochester

District Court, D. New Hampshire · Sep 18, 1996

Qualified Immunity Public officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to gualified immunity from suit for violations of federal law "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … The qualified immunity analysis in this circuit is two-pronged: (1) "the court must establish whether the constitutional right asserted by the plaintiff was 'clearly established' at the time of the alleged violation

Bland v. Lyle

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Apr 1, 2020

Ann., 800 F.3d 985 (8th Cir. 2015) (dismissing failure to train claim after granting qualified immunity on excessive force claim); see also Clark v. Ware, 873 F.Supp.2d 1117, 1122 (E.D. … (Doc. 22-2, p. 3) (emphasis added), this is clearly at odds with the undisputed facts. The causation question is free from doubt.

Patel v. Moron

897 F. Supp. 2d 389 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Sep 25, 2012

Alternatively, defendants assert the defense of qualified immunity. … In Mitchell , the Supreme Court observed that “[u]nless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement

TOMMASSELLO v. Stine

642 F. Supp. 2d 910 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Jul 28, 2009

Defendants respond that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Instead, if a defendant establishes that the right that he allegedly violated was not clearly established at the time of the challenged actions, a district court may grant the defendant qualified immunity without first deciding