Case law

DDS v. Bd. of Dental Examiners of Ala.

382 F. Supp. 3d 1214 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Apr 2, 2019

The Supreme Court has provided little guidance on what entities qualify as "nonsovereign actors" for purposes of Parker immunity. But in N.C. … The Board members might be entitled to Parker immunity under this analysis, but only if the iTero and the images it produces clearly qualify as a "digital imaging *1239 machine" and "digital images" as those terms are used

Nikolao v. Lyon

238 F. Supp. 3d 964 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Feb 23, 2017

To the extent Plaintiff is suing Director Lyon in his individual capacity, he contends he is entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff suffered no violation of her constitutional rights or at least no clearly established … Separate from his qualified immunity argument, but related, Director Lyon also argues that Plaintiff fails to state a claim against him because her claims fail as a matter of law.

Nuovo v. the Ohio State University

726 F. Supp. 2d 829 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 16, 2010

The Sixth Circuit has also explained that qualified immunity “shields government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … City of Covington, 933 F.2d 390, 392 (6th Cir.1991) (“A public official is entitled to qualified immunity for conduct in performing discretionary functions so long as that conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Doherty v. Delaware

424 F. Supp. 2d 729 · District Court, D. Delaware · Mar 31, 2006

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that they are “entitled to qualified immunity from any damages as plaintiff cannot establish a constitution violation that was clearly established and under the circumstances the defendants … (D.I. 20 at 13) Government officials performing discretionary functions are immune from liability for civil damages when their conduct does “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Williams v. Southern Illinois Riverboat/Casino Cruises, Inc.

553 F. Supp. 2d 1041 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Jan 1, 2008

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials from liability for civil damages where their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … The Court need not consider, then, whether the constitutional rights at issue were clearly established on August 27, 2005. Eberhart is entitled to qualified immunity, and summary judgment, on Count III. B.

Betts v. Jackson County Missouri

District Court, W.D. Missouri · Mar 1, 2022

“Qualified immunity shields a public official from suit for civil damages when his ‘conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or identified in the 2017 Jail Audit remained unsolved in June of 2020. … was clearly established.

Mittleman v. United States Treasury

773 F. Supp. 442 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 29, 1991

Qualified Immunity and Lack of Specificity There are two ways in which plaintiff may overcome defendants’ defense *452 of qualified immunity. … In order to defeat a defendant’s claim of immunity under the objective standard, plaintiff must show that a defendant violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Howington v. Eiffe

180 F. Supp. 3d 199 · District Court, N.D. New York · Apr 15, 2016

Qualified Immunity Defendants next argue that, even if Plaintiff has evidence of excessive force, they are entitled to qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

Watson v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 19, 2024

Mot. at 6 n.5, arguing only that Director Faust is not entitled to qualified immunity. … Escorsio, 764 F.3d 102, 111 (1st Cir. 2014) (refusing, at the summary judgment stage, to grant qualified immunity to officers based on defendants’ concession that “clearly established law” required officers to take “some

Hron v. Jenkins

15 F. Supp. 2d 1082 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jul 30, 1998

If plaintiff meets his initial burden, defendants then assume the summary judgment burden of establishing that there are no disputed material facts that would defeat their claim for qualified immunity. Woodward v. … Defendants are thus entitled to qualified immunity against plaintiffs claim for damages, and entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Fairchild, Arabatzis & Smith, Inc. v. Sackheim

451 F. Supp. 1189 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 27, 1978

Even if damages potentially were available, however, we conclude that the agents are entitled to assert, as they have done, a defense of qualified, official immunity. See Wood v. … United States Department of Agriculture, supra, 535 F.2d 688 , and that they have established an uncontested factual basis for their claim of immunity.

Angara v. City of Chicago

897 F. Supp. 355 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 20, 1995

Qualified immunity shields public officials from liability to the extent their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Biddle v. … The Seventh Circuit has set out the following two-step inquiry to determine if qualified immunity applies: First, the plaintiff must show that the law was clearly established when the challenged conduct occurred.

Okocci v. KLEIN, CO.

270 F. Supp. 2d 603 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 9, 2003

Legal Standard for Qualified Immunity The goal of qualified immunity is to “avoid excessive disruption of government and permit the resolution of many insubstantial claims on summary judgment.” Harlow v. … If the law was not established clearly, qualified immunity holds since a public official “could not reasonably be expected to anticipate subsequent legal developments.” Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727 .

Maryland Savings-Share Insurance Corp. v. United States

308 F. Supp. 761 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 22, 1970

MSSIC also cites intergovernmental tax immunity cases to establish that MSSIC’s activity is an essential governmental function. … The exemption carried forward, however, was qualified by adding a cutoff date of September 1, 1951. Insurers not organized before that date did not qualify for the exemption.

Richardson v. Coughlin

763 F. Supp. 1228 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 22, 1991

By 1987, it was clearly established that inmates possessed a constitutional right to due process, Wolff v. … Thus petitioner has not shown a violation of a clearly established right and defendants have qualified immunity from damages on the First Amendment claim. 2.

Carroll v. Village of Shelton

973 F. Supp. 900 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Dec 19, 1996

Immunity The defendants in their individual capacities argue that they are entitled to summary judgment on plaintiffs section 1983 claims on the basis of qualified immunity. … In order to determine whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity the court must determine (1) whether plaintiff has asserted the violation of a constitutional right, (2) whether this constitutional right was clearly

Fritz v. Brown and Daly

2007 DNH 104 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Aug 29, 2007

Alternatively, they argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Are Defendants Entitled to Qualified Immunity?

Adoption Services of Connecticut, Inc. v. Ragaglia

178 F. Supp. 2d 139 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Dec 17, 2001

A plaintiff may overcome the defendant’s qualified immunity “by showing that [the plaintiffs asserted] rights were clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue,” Davis v. … immunity defense, and the defendant is entitled to the defense of qualified immunity as a matter of law. 2. • Objectively Reasonable Action Even assuming defendant Schultz violated a clearly established federal right of

Johnson v. Meachum

839 F. Supp. 953 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Dec 15, 1993

Finally, the defendants assert that they are all shielded by their qualified, good faith immunity. … Generally, government, officials performing discretionary functions are accorded qualified immumty and thereby sMelded from civil damages liability insofar as they do not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Cornett v. Longois

871 F. Supp. 918 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Dec 8, 1994

The doctrine of qualified immunity affords protection against individual liability for civil damages to officials “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Qualified immunity protects a police officer from liability if a reasonable competent law enforcement officer would not have known that his actions violated clearly established law. Anderson v.