Case law

Soscia Holdings, LLC v. P State of Rhode Island, et al.

2023 DNH 089 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Jul 29, 2023

Soscia contends that because of the court’s ruling on sovereign immunity and qualified immunity it will not be able to recover those costs from the defendants. … With respect to irreparable harm, the court’s recent rulings on sovereign immunity and qualified immunity preclude compensation on the federal claims through money damages in this case, which may support a finding of irreparable

Brown v. Pfaff

357 F. Supp. 2d 781 · District Court, D. Delaware · Feb 15, 2005

The court’s inquiry into qualified immunity is primarily legal — whether the legal norms allegedly violated were clearly established — but some fact-specific inquiry into the defendant’s actions is required. Gruenke v. … engaged in conduct alleged to have violated a clearly established right.

Gallentine v. Housing Authority

919 F. Supp. 2d 787 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Jan 22, 2013

In the context of a motion to dismiss, however, “if the pleadings on their face show an unreasonable violation of a clearly established constitutional right, the defense of qualified immunity will not sustain a motion to … A defendant “is entitled to qualified immunity unless he violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of his conduct.” Blackwell v.

(PS) Lull v. County of Placer

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 13, 2020

Witt, 781 F.2d 7 155, 157 (9th Cir. 1985) (listing nonexclusive factors relevant to determining whether absolute or 8 qualified immunity applies to officers whose “functions bear a close association to the judicial 9 … Penman, 103 F.3d 868, 874 (9th 26 Cir. 1996) (to establish a violation of substantive due process, “a plaintiff is ordinarily required to prove that a challenged government action was ‘clearly arbitrary and unreasonable

Metro Produce Distributors, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis

473 F. Supp. 2d 955 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Jan 24, 2007

Amend Answer seeking to add the affirmative defenses of qualified immunity and failure to mitigate damages. The pretrial scheduling order established a December 1, 2006 deadline for amending the pleadings. … Qualified immunity is clearly distinct from official immunity, and thus, it is not reasonable to believe that asserting one gives notice of the other. See Gordon ex. rel Gordon v.

Mead v. INDEPENDENCE ASS'N

714 F. Supp. 2d 188 · District Court, D. Maine · May 27, 2010

However, in the interest of completeness, the Court will also address the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis — whether, assuming that a constitutional violation occurred, such right was clearly established. … Accordingly, even assuming Plaintiff had adequately alleged a constitutional violation, Defendants Cobb and Braden would be entitled to qualified immunity because such violation was not clearly established.

Mimics, Inc. v. Village of Angel Fire

277 F. Supp. 2d 1131 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Aug 12, 2003

Qualifíed Immunity Motion Defendant Hasford seeks summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity. … , defeating defendant’s qualified immunity challenge.

Blackmon v. KUKUA

758 F. Supp. 2d 398 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Dec 2, 2010

In Valigura, the Fifth Circuit held that Eighth Amendment law with respect to similarly excessive temperatures was “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity because “the contours of these rights were sufficiently … Whether Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity depends on whether their conduct was objectively reasonable in light of this clearly established law. Mace, 333 F.3d at 624 .

Bianchi v. McQueen

917 F. Supp. 2d 822 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 11, 2013

Qualified immunity “protects government officials from liability for civil damages if their actions did not violate ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” … The qualified immunity analysis comprises a two-part inquiry: (i) “whether the facts alleged show that the state actor violated a constitutional right,” and (ii) “whether the right was clearly established.” Hanes v.

Union Pacific Railroad v. Village of South Barrington

958 F. Supp. 1285 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 7, 1997

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Under the doctrine of qualified immunity for Section 1983 liability, “public officials performing discretionary functions are protected against suits for damages unless their conduct violates clearly established … The Seventh Circuit has established a two-part test for a ruling on qualified immunity: (1) whether the conduct constitutes a constitutional violation; and (2) whether the constitutional standards were clearly established

Brown v. Stewart

910 F. Supp. 1064 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 12, 1996

“Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law if the applicable law was not clearly established at the time of the alleged constitutional violation.” Karnes v. … Kozakiewicz responds that he is entitled to qualified immunity because his actions violated no clearly established constitutional right. County Defs’ Br. at 9-10. Supervisory liability exists under section 1983.

Welch v. THEODORIDES-BUSTLE

677 F. Supp. 2d 1283 · District Court, N.D. Florida · Jan 5, 2010

Qualified Immunity The defendants assert that, as public officials or employees, they have qualified immunity. Qualified immunity protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” … Thus a public officer or employee may be held individually liable only if his or her conduct violates clearly established law.

Clark v. Thomas

505 F. Supp. 2d 884 · District Court, D. Kansas · Feb 28, 2007

To overcome the defense of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must not only show a violation of a specific constitutional right, he must also demonstrate that the right “was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s … entitled to qualified immunity.

Hyman v. Capital One Auto Fin.

306 F. Supp. 3d 756 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 23, 2018

Defendants Devlin and Morris Are Not Shielded By Qualified Immunity 14 "The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials 'from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … establish a right for purposes of qualified immunity."

Ramirez v. United States

998 F. Supp. 425 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 16, 1998

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 817 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (qualified immunity applies when “conduct does not violate clearly established ... rights of which a reasonable person would have known”). … -allegations state- a claim for violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before commencement of discovery.” Mitchell v.

J.B. ex rel. Brown v. Amerson

890 F. Supp. 2d 1299 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Aug 30, 2012

In the Eleventh Circuit, “the law can be ‘clearly established* for qualified immunity purposes only by decisions of the U.S. … The plaintiff has not met the burden of defeating qualified immunity by showing that the law was clearly established that such force was excessive under' the circumstances.

Ayuso-Figueroa v. Rivera-Gonzalez

456 F. Supp. 2d 309 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Nov 18, 2005

The procedures regarding qualified immunity allow for judicial review, via certiorari, on the qualified immunity issue. Id. at 207, 121 S.Ct. 2151 . … In the instant case, Co-defendant Torres argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity since Plaintiffs right to the good conduct and work/study time credits was not clearly established at the time when he denied the application

BUSINESS LEADERS IN CHRIST v. UNIVERSITY OF IOWA

360 F. Supp. 3d 885 · District Court, S.D. Iowa · Feb 6, 2019

Thus, as to those claims, the Court focuses on the second qualified immunity factor- whether the constitutional rights were "clearly established." … The Supreme Court recently summarized: Qualified immunity attaches when an official's conduct " 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.' " While

Cook v. Parish of Jefferson

District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Jan 3, 2022

“[A] plaintiff seeking to defeat qualified immunity must show: ‘(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.’ … qualified immunity.

Fralin & Waldron, Inc. v. County of Henrico, Va.

474 F. Supp. 1315 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Aug 10, 1979

Qualified immunity extends only to immunity from damages. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 238-9 , 94 S.Ct. 1683 , 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974). … In this respect the defendant Planning Commission members are subject to suit and may be entitled to a qualified immunity from damages only.