Case law

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

Davis v. Kelly

981 F. Supp. 178 · District Court, W.D. New York · Aug 7, 1997

Qualified Immunity. Defendant contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Government officials performing discretionary functions in the course of their duties are immune from suits alleging constitutional violations “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

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

Johnson v. Cushing

483 F. Supp. 608 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Jan 17, 1980

It is the existence of reasonable grounds for the belief formed at the time and in light of all the circumstances, coupled with good-faith belief that affords a basis for qualified immunity of executive officers Id. at 247 … Only when Congress has clearly considered the problem and expressly declared that any State which undertakes given regulable conduct will be deemed thereby to have waived its immunity should courts disallow the invocation

Fielder v. Gehring

110 F. Supp. 2d 1312 · District Court, D. Hawaii · Jul 18, 2000

Qualified immunity bars claims against state officials in their individual capacities if their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … The Ninth Circuit has articulated a three-step anafysis to determine whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity.

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

Newton v. City of New York

681 F. Supp. 2d 473 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 27, 2010

Qualified and Absolute Immunity Government officials performing discretionary functions are generally granted qualified immunity and are immune from suit provided that “ ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established … Leonard, 282 F.3d 123, 124 (2d Cir.2002) (finding that a supervisory official is protected by qualified immunity unless both the federal right and the basis of supervisory liability were clearly established).

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.

Speagle v. Ferguson

852 F. Supp. 2d 1096 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Mar 27, 2012

Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 , 129 S.Ct. 808 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009) (“Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.”). II. … Count II is based on an alleged decision — the decision to charge Plaintiff allegedly without probable cause — that clearly falls under the shield of absolute immunity. See, e.g., Smith v.

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

Hall v. Raech

677 F. Supp. 2d 784 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 7, 2010

They also invoke the defense of qualified immunity, arguing that even if plaintiffs evidence is sufficient to show a constitutional violation, the right *791 infringed was not clearly established at the time of the incident … Qualified Immunity Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “officers performing discretionary functions are ‘shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Barney v. Suggs

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 20, 2022

Qualified immunity applies unless Burney can show that the officers (1) violated a constitutional right, and (2) that the right was “clearly established” at the time of the violation. Plumhoff v. … The officers are entitled to qualified immunity unless Burney can show that they (1) violated a constitutional right, and (2) that the right was “clearly established” at the time of the violation.

Brown v. Board of Trustees Sealy Independent School District

871 F. Supp. 2d 581 · District Court, S.D. Texas · May 9, 2012

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 … County of Comal, 400 F.3d 284, 289 (5th Cir.2005) (“Even if the government official’s conduct violates a clearly established right, the official is nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct was objectively

SEARS v. BRADLEY

District Court, M.D. Georgia · Mar 31, 2023

“Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … established” without resolving whether there was an actual constitutional violation.70 For the purposes of qualified immunity “in wrongful arrest cases, [the Eleventh Circuit has] defined the ‘clearly-established

Fedorov v. Board of Regents for University of Georgia

194 F. Supp. 2d 1378 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · Mar 29, 2002

In response, the individual defendants assert qualified immunity. The Supreme Court prescribes a two-step analysis for determining qualified immunity. … Because I find that Plaintiffs allegations fail to establish a constitutional violation, the qualified immunity analysis ends after the first step. 1.

Smith v. Lanier

779 F. Supp. 2d 79 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 27, 2011

To determine whether qualified immunity applies, the Court asks (1) whether plaintiffs’ allegations, if taken as true, show that the defendants’ conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was “clearly … Defendants have not argued that the constitutional right at issue is not clearly established.

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

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

Hall v. Missouri Highway and Transp. Com'n

995 F. Supp. 1001 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Mar 6, 1998

Finally, he argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Finally, the Court concludes that Hopkins defense of qualified immunity must be denied. Plaintiff's rights under the First Amendment were clearly established at the time of the events giving rise to this lawsuit.