Case law

Currier Ex Rel. Estate of Juarez v. Doran

23 F. Supp. 2d 1277 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Oct 21, 1998

In addition, however, Gonzales and Robbins maintain they violated no clearly established law and are therefore entitled to qualified immunity. Discussion A. … When a qualified immunity defense is raised in a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff assumes the burden of showing the defendant violated clearly established law. Breidenbach v. Bolish, 126 F.3d 1288, 1291 (10th Cir.1997).

Hudson v. Hudson

475 F.3d 741 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 26, 2007

does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … IV 9 * Having determined that qualified immunity is available to these officers, we next consider whether they are entitled to it. We engage in the well-established two-step inquiry specified in Saucier v.

John Lauro, Jr. v. Michael Charles, the City of New York and the Police Department of the City of New York

219 F.3d 202 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 28, 2000

But we also hold that, because the Fourth Amendment right at issue was not clearly established until today’s decision, the defendant police officer in this case is entitled to qualified immunity. … Accordingly, we hold that, because the unconstitutionality of the staged perp walk was, until today, not clearly established, Detective Charles is entitled to qualified immunity for his participation in the perp walk.

Vanderklok v. United States

140 F. Supp. 3d 373 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2015

Even if the Individual Officers lacked probable cause to arrest Vanderklok, they would be protected by qualified immunity because they did not violate a right that was “clearly established.” … This is not so clearly established as to override the Individual Officers’ qualified immunity.

Prowisor v. Bon-Ton, Inc.

426 F. Supp. 2d 165 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 6, 2006

Qualified Immunity Even assuming that probable cause was not established, Officer Roth is entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity can be established in three ways: (1) if defendant’s acts did not violate a clearly established constitutional right; (2) if it remains unclear as to whether an exception permitted such acts; and (3) if

Spencer v. Pew

District Court, D. Arizona · Mar 11, 2021

Qualified Immunity 9 Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their 10 conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … In deciding 12 if qualified immunity applies, a court must determine: (1) whether the facts alleged show 13 the defendant’s conduct violated a constitutional right; and (2) whether that right was 14 clearly established

Grune v. Rodriguez

176 F.3d 27 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 26, 1999

Defendants also argued that they were entitled to qualified immunity because they had not violated any "clearly established" rights of plaintiff. … DISCUSSION 14 Appellants argue on this appeal that they are immune from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity because their actions did not "violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Farrelly v. City of Concord

902 F. Supp. 2d 178 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Oct 2, 2012

Carroll are not entitled to qualified immunity because the unconstitutionality of RSA 644:4, 1(f) was clearly established by the New Hampshire Supreme Court’s decision in Pierce . … Even so, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity because Farrelly’s right to send the e-mails in question was not clearly established at the time of his arrest.

Berbick v. Precinct 42

977 F. Supp. 2d 268 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 27, 2013

Defendants Jordan and Bragg, however, must establish either the reasonableness of the search or qualified immunity. b. The Reasonableness of the Frisk Frisks are reasonable when necessary to protect officer safety. … Qualified Immunity Even without undisputed facts showing that the search was reasonable, Defendants would be entitled to summary judgment if the undisputed facts supported a qualified immunity defense.

Megatel Homes LLC v. City of Mansfield, Texas

District Court, N.D. Texas · Aug 6, 2025

The City’s assertion that the Sherman Act claims should be dismissed because it is entitled to state-action immunity is more than an affirmative defense. Like qualified immunity, where it’s available, see Stramaski v. … And, like qualified immunity, Parker immunity is not jurisdictional. See, e.g., Teladoc v. Tex. Med. Bd., 1-15-CV-343 RP, 2015 WL 8773509, at *6 (W.D. Tex.

Kollaritsch v. Mich. State Univ. Bd. of Trs.

298 F. Supp. 3d 1089 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Nov 2, 2017

Defendant Maybank is not entitled to qualified immunity for the Equal Protection claim brought by Gross. Plaintiffs have established that the relevant rights were clearly established by 2012. … Because the law was clearly established at the time, Defendant Maybank's request for qualified immunity for the Equal Protection claim is denied.

Bessman v. Powell

991 F. Supp. 830 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jan 20, 1998

established law for purposes of qualified immunity inquiries. … The Court notes that qualified immunity also acts to bar Plaintiffs Due Process claims because, as alleged, Plaintiffs Due Process claims are not clearly established.

Cotto v. City of Middletown

158 F. Supp. 3d 67 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Jan 19, 2016

“The issues on qualified immunity are: (1) whether plaintiff has shown facts making out violation of a constitutional right; (2) if so, whether that right was ‘clearly established’; and (3) even if the right was ‘clearly … Conducting a strip search despite a wholly unjustified lack of privacy violates clearly established law and defeats Davis’ claim of qualified immunity.

Cullen v. Mattaliano

690 F. Supp. 93 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 2, 1988

Defendants Mattaliano and MacDonald’s Claims of Qualified Immunity A. Qualified Immunity. … The Supreme Court devised an objective test for qualified immunity in Harlow v.

Heyne v. Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools

655 F.3d 556 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 26, 2011

right was clearly established.” … When a defendant appeals the denial of a motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity, we review de novo whether the complaint alleges violation of a clearly established constitutional right. See Hardy v.

Clouser v. City of Thornton

676 F. Supp. 228 · District Court, D. Colorado · Dec 31, 1987

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions ... are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … When the affirmative defense of qualified immunity is raised, the plaintiff has the burden of convincing the court that his federal constitutional or statutory rights were clearly established at the time of the questioned

Richard Wesley v. Alison Campbell

779 F.3d 421 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 2, 2015

If the arrest was supported by probable cause, then Rigney would be entitled to qualified immunity. If not, then qualified immunity was inappropriate and both decisions must be reversed. … Hence, qualified immunity was inappropriate, because it is clearly established that “[p]olice officers cannot, in good faith, rely on a judicial determination of probable cause when that determination was premised on an officer

Walker v. Schult

717 F.3d 119 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 23, 2013

was "clearly established" at the time of the challenged conduct. … If an official's conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, or if the official reasonably believed that his conduct did not violate such a right, then he is protected by qualified immunity.

Atherton v. District of Columbia Office of the Mayor

706 F.3d 512 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 8, 2013

of the qualified immunity analysis should be addressed first” — (1) whether the alleged facts show that the officials’ conduct violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) whether that right was clearly established … II “Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.”

Kent v. Katz

146 F. Supp. 2d 450 · District Court, D. Vermont · May 11, 2001

A police officer is entitled to qualified immunity from claims brought under federal law if either (1) his conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known, or (2) it was objectively … Moreover, Katz is not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.