Case law

Jordan v. State of Tenn.

738 F. Supp. 258 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Jun 7, 1990

If there is no such constitutional duty, then the defendants are protected by qualified immunity since they could not have violated any “clearly established constitutional duty.” See Eugene D. v. … Qualified Immunity Even if this Court were to agree with the Second Circuit that voluntary residents of a state institution are owed a constitutional duty of safe conditions, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity

Gidley et al. v. Oliveri

2009 DNH 094 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Jun 25, 2009

“[T]he second, ‘clearly established’ step of the qualified immunity analysis . . . has two aspects. … Clearly established right “Public officials are . . . entitled to qualified immunity unless the facts establish that their conduct violated a constitutional right that was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the

Ulysse v. Stokes

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2021

As a result, Ulysse does not point to a case clearly establishing that Al-Hinawi’s alleged conduct here violated federal law, which entitles to Officer to qualified immunity. Ulysse turns to Taylor v. … By comparison to the objective qualified immunity test under § 1983, Hargraves v. D.C., 134 F.

Kargbo v. Brown, et al.

2013 DNH 170 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Dec 13, 2013

Nor can it conclude that they are entitled to the protections afforded by qualified immunity. … Aug. 5 , 2008) (noting that the malicious and sadistic use of force is always violative of clearly established law, so qualified immunity is rarely available when the parties genuinely dispute whether such force was applied

Parillo v. Sura

652 F. Supp. 1517 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Feb 13, 1987

Qualified Immunity “[Gjovernment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes is a question of law.

Rios v. Jenkins

390 F. Supp. 3d 714 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Jul 15, 2019

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from *723 civil damages liability "so long as their conduct 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Accordingly they "cannot be considered in deciding whether particular conduct violated clearly established law for purposes of adjudging entitlement to qualified immunity." Booker v. S.C.

Word of Faith Fellowship, Inc. v. Rutherford County Department of Social Services

329 F. Supp. 2d 675 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jun 10, 2004

The alleged threats and harassment clearly constitute injuries to Plaintiffs. Therefore, Plaintiffs have properly alleged a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (3). D. Qualified immunity. … toward constitutional rights, those rights must be clearly established.

Ransom v. Davies

816 F. Supp. 681 · District Court, D. Kansas · Mar 30, 1993

Because plaintiff fails to show defendants violated any clearly established right, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity against plaintiffs claim for damages. See Rucker v. … Johnson, 724 F.Supp. 568 (N.D.Ill.1989) (defendants ensured of qualified immunity where existing legal precedent did not clearly establish reliability of immunoassay urinalysis testing).

Alabama Ex Rel. Graddick v. Veterans Administration

648 F. Supp. 1208 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Nov 7, 1986

The federal defendant, VA, also raises the issue of sovereign immunity. … of such agencies, Congress’ intention to waive sovereign immunity could not be more clearly established.

Driever v. United States of America

District Court, District of Columbia · May 14, 2021

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 … Jan. 15, 1997). 7 was clearly established for qualified-immunity purposes.” Daugherty v. Sheer, 891 F.3d 386, 390 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (cleaned up).

Johnson v. City of Fayetteville

91 F. Supp. 3d 775 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 4, 2015

Qualified immunity provides government officials with immunity from suit for money damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable officer would … Nor can the court answer the second qualified immunity inquiry — whether the right was clearly established at the time of the official’s conduct — in Officer Koehler’s favor. Messerschmidt v.

Smith v. Montgomery County, Md.

573 F. Supp. 604 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 26, 1983

Under the defense of qualified immunity, McGuckian is “shielded from liability insofar as [his] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … The Supreme Court has stated that, in determining whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, a court must “determine, not only the currently applicable law, but whether that law was clearly established at the

Bond v. AGUINALDO

265 F. Supp. 2d 926 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 29, 2003

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials 3 from civil liability when performing discretionary functions so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights. … (rejecting qualified immunity defense at pleading stage because plaintiff sufficiently alleged denial or delay of medical treatment, which is a clearly established constitutional violation). IV. Conclusion Dr.

Swagler v. Sheridan

837 F. Supp. 2d 509 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 12, 2011

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … established’ for qualified immunity purposes.”)

Maus v. Lade

District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Mar 10, 2020

Nor is Lade entitled to qualified immunity. … Wesby, 138 S.Ct. 577, 589 (2018) (explaining that officers are not entitled to qualified immunity if the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time).

Bieros v. Nicola

839 F. Supp. 332 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 9, 1993

or administrative duties, then they are only entitled to a qualified, good-faith immunity. … A qualified immunity only protects defendants if it can be shown .that they did not violate any clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Walczyk v. Rio

339 F. Supp. 2d 385 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Sep 29, 2004

Defendants contend that they are entitled to summary judgment on Thomas’s fourth amendment claims because they have qualified immunity. … Defendants contend that they are entitled to summary judgment on these claims based on qualified immunity.

Harewood v. Braithwaite

64 F. Supp. 3d 384 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 5, 2014

Qualified Immunity Standards Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Finding a right clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity “do[es] not require a case directly on point, but existing precedent must have placed the ... constitutional question beyond de *400 bate.”

Gordon v. Cargor

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Aug 7, 2025

right underlying his claim is “clearly established”); Mosier v. … Evans, 90 F.4th 541, 546 (6th Cir. 2024) (explaining that for purposes of qualified immunity, a plaintiff may not identify a “clearly established” right at a high level of generality).

Beaver v. City of Federal Way

507 F. Supp. 2d 1137 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 31, 2007

Qualified immunity protects § 1983 defendants from liability for civil damages if their conduct does not violate a clearly established constitutional or statutory *1148 right of which a reasonable person would have known. … Under the second prong of Saucier, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.