Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
1,818 results
0.79s
Hodge v. Office of Motor Vehicle Louisiana
District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Jun 25, 2024
to qualified immunity on any § 1983 claims; and (4) Palumbo, Huff, and Purpera are entitled to discretionary immunity. … Hodge does not demonstrate that these facts establish a viable cause of action.
Cited 0 timesUnknown318 F. Supp. 2d 366 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Mar 26, 2004
There is no evidence before the Court establishing that Charles Brumfield qualifies as an employer under Title VII. In fact, Charles Brumfield is an appointee of the sheriff like any other deputy receiving a commission. … Under this exception, if a particular employee qualifies as part of an outgoing public employer’s “personal staff,” then the incoming employer is generally immune from discrimination claims. See Chinaca v.
Cited 16 timesPublished573 F. Supp. 488 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Oct 20, 1983
The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) is a limited waiver of this sovereign immunity. … She has since reached age eighteen which nullifies the need and ability for Dora to qualify as her tutrix. She has standing to bring her own *495 claim and the complaint should he amended to reflect this fact.
Cited 14 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. Louisiana · Apr 12, 2023
As public officials, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim, unless their conduct “violate[d] a clearly established constitutional right.” Harris v. … Thus, even if the evidence supports a conclusion that plaintiff’s rights were violated, qualified immunity may still be invoked, unless “the government official violated clearly established statutory or constitutional
Cited 0 timesUnknown675 F. Supp. 331 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Dec 15, 1987
The evidence in the record establishes that the U.S. 90 property was in fact covered with “junk” and “trash” as contemplated by the Ordinance. … CLAIMS OF IMMUNITY It is settled that legislators are entitled to absolute immunity from federal damage claims for conduct while acting in a legislative capacity. Hernandez v.
Cited 1 timesPublishedSmith v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
102 F. Supp. 3d 867 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Apr 7, 2015
A showing that the unsuccessful employee was “clearly better qualified,” as opposed to merely better or as qualified, than the employee selected will be sufficient to prove that the employer’s proffered reasons are pretext … Notably, Plaintiff does not argue that she was clearly better qualified than Ms. Bourg. In fact, Ms.
Cited 8 timesPublishedMcCoy v. Louisiana State Board of Education
229 F. Supp. 735 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · May 20, 1964
The sovereignty of the state must be protected, and its immunity from suit without its consent as proclaimed by the Eleventh Amendment must be recognized. … Louisiana law clearly prohibits a suit against the Louisiana State Board of Education without the consent of the state. Such consent has not been given.
Cited 3 timesPublishedHolly v. Housing Authority of New Orleans
684 F. Supp. 1363 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · May 4, 1988
The assistance contract was authorized under Section 8 of the United States Housing Act, which provides for direct subvention payments to private lessors on behalf of qualified low-income lessees. 1 42 U.S.C. § 1437f. … The Phelps holding is clearly at odds with recent Supreme Court case law discussed infra. 7 .
Cited 7 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. Louisiana · Mar 31, 2021
Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … the defendants to qualified immunity.
Cited 0 timesUnknownSchwegmann Bros. Giant Super Markets, Inc. v. Pharmacy Reports, Inc.
486 F. Supp. 606 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Mar 7, 1980
Unfortunately, following such reasoning to its logical conclusion would in this case virtually immunize the defendant from the law of libel, see Buckley v. … Insignificant only for purposes of establishing a continuous presence in the state.
Cited 19 timesPublished883 F. Supp. 2d 659 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Jul 26, 2012
The Supreme Court has established that the “test for determining whether a State has waived its immunity from federal-court jurisdiction is a stringent one.” Sossamon v. … Having established that Claimant’s third-party complaint constitutes a suit against the state for purposes of Eleventh Amendment immunity, we must turn now to the issue of whether the state has waived that immunity. Hi.
Cited 0 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. Louisiana · May 12, 2025
or Alternatively, Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Based on Qualified Immunity (Doc. 91). … Because Plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proving that Defendant Walker’s qualified immunity defense was inapplicable, the Court found that Plaintiff did not overcome Defendant Walker’s qualified immunity defense.16
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. Louisiana · Aug 15, 2022
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.”40 Qualified immunity balances two important … immunity and maintain that they are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate Plaintiff’s First 100 R.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDucrepont v. Baton Rouge Marine Enterprises, Inc.
666 F. Supp. 882 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Aug 14, 1987
Plaintiffs remedy is limited to the workers’ compensation scheme established by the Longshore Act. I. … The 1984 Amendments clearly “provide statutory immunity to shipyards against [a Section 905(b) ] ... negligence action” and establish “workers’ compensation under the Longshore Act the exclusive remedy” in the dual capacity
Cited 18 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. Louisiana · Feb 13, 2020
that the right was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct.’” … “It is clearly established that state prisoners are entitled to reasonably adequate food.
Cited 0 timesUnknownJordan v. Five Unnamed Police Officers & Agents
528 F. Supp. 507 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Dec 10, 1981
The defense of qualified immunity, which is available to local, state and federal law enforcement officers, would protect the individual officers from liability for damages if they acted with a good faith belief based upon … Although the good faith qualified immunity defense of its officers is not available to a municipality in a § 1983 action, Owen v.
Cited 3 timesPublished39 F. Supp. 120 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · May 31, 1941
It is established that in addition to these funds, Mrs. … Caster, Trustee in Bankruptcy, was elected Trustee on February 8, 1937, and qualified as such on February 9, 1937. 5.
Cited 3 timesPublishedGuillory v. Administrators of the Tulane University of Louisiana
212 F. Supp. 674 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Dec 5, 1962
They are admittedly qualified in every respect. 2 They have been refused admission solely because they are Negroes. … The Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund were to exercise these privileges, powers and immunities to develop and maintain the University of Louisiana and, if they failed to do so, all powers and immunities were to
Cited 10 timesPublishedJefferson Disposal Co. v. Parish of Jefferson, La.
603 F. Supp. 1125 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Mar 5, 1985
Louisiana Power & Light Co., 435 U.S. 389 , 98 S.Ct. 1123 , 55 L.Ed.2d 364 (1978), the Supreme Court held that “state action” immunity established in Parker v. … Thus the Authority cannot establish that there is a "clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed” sovereign state policy favoring the Authority’s boycott of competitors in the parking market. 641 F.2d at 37 . 24 .
Cited 20 timesPublished936 F. Supp. 2d 691 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Mar 27, 2013
They contend that they are immune from punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. § T981a(b)(l). … Thus, the major issue with regard to Plaintiffs ADA claim under Section 12112(d)(4)(A) is whether the allegations in Plaintiffs complaint suffice to clearly establish the applicability of the business necessity exception
Cited 35 timesPublished
Ask Donna