Case law

Grossman v. United States

District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 19, 2025

While Defendant Rezak raises a qualified immunity defense in his support brief, courts in this Circuit have long held that qualified immunity “turns on factual questions that cannot be resolved at [the motion to dismiss … Supp. 2d 659, 666 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (“[r]esolution of qualified immunity depends on the determination of certain factual questions that cannot be answered at this stage of the litigation.” Denton v.

Eastland County Cooperative Dispatch, Clay Coffey, Wayne Bradford, Ken Wheeler, and Gerald Cozart v. Elnor Maxine Poyner, Individually and as Independent of the Estate of William Euell Poyner, and as Sole Heir of William Euell Poyner

Texas Court of Appeals, 11th District (Eastland) · Oct 25, 2001

The motions for summary judgment implicated the doctrines of sovereign immunity, official immunity, and qualified immunity. … Was that general prohibition the source for clearly established law which the officers violated in this case?

Stamps v. Town of Framingham

38 F. Supp. 3d 146 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 24, 2014

Stamps was objectively reasonable; and (3) Duncan is entitled to qualified immunity because a constitutional right to be free from unintentional shootings was not clearly established at the time of the incident. II. … For purposes of the second step of the qualified-immunity analysis, “[a] right is clearly established only if it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.”

Rivera-García v. Román-Carrero

938 F. Supp. 2d 189 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jan 3, 2013

For that reason, I proceed to his argument for qualified immunity. 2. … Qualified Immunity and “Clearly Established” Rights Sosa-Vega asserts that even if the Fourth Amendment properly applies, he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Cole v. Barnes

128 F. Supp. 3d 1002 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Sep 4, 2015

Qualified Immunity Defendants Barnes and George contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Plaintiffs First and Fourth Amendment claims because the Sheriffs Department had probable cause, in the … Qualified immunity “protects government officials performing discretionary functions unless their conduct violates a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person in the official’s position

Norfleet v. ARK. DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES

796 F. Supp. 1194 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 1, 1992

Qualified immunity from liability for civil damages exists where the defendants' actions do not violate "clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … The Court, however, does not need to decide this question because it finds that the law in this area is not clearly established and the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Smith v. Lee

District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Apr 22, 2022

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for claims against them in their individual capacity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … If Stewart can establish the violation of his constitutional right to be free of excessive force, the Court will then analyze the second element of qualified immunity, which is whether the right was clearly established

Chavez v. Jefferson County, Texas

District Court, E.D. Texas · Mar 21, 2023

The qualified immunity defense has two prongs: (1) “whether an official’s conduct violated a statutory or constitutional right of the plaintiff”; and (2) “whether the right was clearly established … Regardless of qualified immunity’s origins, this Court is bound by Fifth Circuit precedent and Supreme Court precedent—both which recognize qualified immunity.

Jean-Baptiste v. Gutierrez

680 F. Supp. 2d 1318 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jan 13, 2010

The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has held that in this Circuit the law can be “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes, “only by decisions of the U.S. … to qualified immunity.

Pitchford v. Borough of Munhall

631 F. Supp. 2d 636 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 13, 2007

In order for a federally protected right to be “clearly established” for the purpose of a qualified immunity inquiry, “[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that … Pitchford’s “asserted right” is clearly established.

Engel v. Buchan

778 F. Supp. 2d 846 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 4, 2011

immunity test: whether a reasonable officer would have known that his actions were unconstitutional in light of clearly established law. … , because Engel has properly stated a claim for a violation of a constitutional right, and because that right was clearly established at the time of the asserted violation, Buchan is not entitled to qualified immunity against

Watenza v. City of Dayton, 21984 (2-22-2008)

2008 Ohio 749 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 22, 2008

In addition, the defendants argued that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity and that Appellant failed to establish a § 1983 complaint against the City. … Qualified immunity raised as a defense 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

Lovell v. Comsewogue School District

214 F. Supp. 2d 319 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 15, 2002

Qualified Immunity In two sentences, the defendants argue that Defendant Rella’s conduct is shielded by qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Spinks v. Township of Clinton

402 N.J. Super. 465 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 11, 2008

his defense of qualified immunity. … And he acknowledged the Court's two-part test for qualified immunity: 1) the officer violated a constitutional right of a plaintiff, and 2) that right was "clearly established." Saucier v.

Turner v. Huibregtse

421 F. Supp. 2d 1149 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Mar 22, 2006

Qualified Immunity Defendants Mickelson and Esser contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct in the course of plaintiffs search did not violate any of plaintiffs clearly established constitutional … I conclude that plaintiffs claims against defendants Mickelson and Esser are not barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Wolfel v. Morris

972 F.2d 712 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 18, 1992

Government officials who perform discretionary functions and whose conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known are entitled to qualified immunity … In a case decided before the qualified immunity doctrine was firmly established in Harlow , our Circuit held that immunity was available to “a prison official who relies on a facially valid regulation unless he knows or should

Concepcion v. MUNICIPALITY OF GURADBO

558 F. Supp. 2d 149 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · May 11, 2007

Plaintiffs opposed this request stating that the Complaint survives a qualified immunity attack because it charges Defendants with violations of Plaintiffs’ clearly established constitutional rights, of which co-defendants … Furthermore, as to the other prongs of the qualified immunity test, the right to be free from any sort of political discrimination is a clearly established constitutional right which a reasonable government employee is aware

Rasul v. Rumsfeld

414 F. Supp. 2d 26 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 6, 2006

Qualified immunity “shield[s 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.” … Any Constitutional Right was Not Clearly Established Assuming arguendo that the D.C.

McDay Ex Rel. McDay v. City of Atlanta

740 F. Supp. 852 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Apr 4, 1990

Qualified Immunity Officers Cartwright and Price move for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. … The qualified immunity defense first recognized by the Supreme Court in Pierson v.

Lyde v. New York City

145 F. Supp. 2d 350 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 30, 2001

The general rule is that “ ‘doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability insofar as their *354 conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … “Even where the law is ‘clearly established’ and the scope of an official’s permissible conduct is ‘clearly defined,’ the qualified immunity defense also protects an official if it was ‘objectively reasonable’ for him at