Case law

Sportique Fashions, Inc. v. Sullivan

421 F. Supp. 302 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 24, 1976

The defendants herein are each entitled to the defense of immunity under the theory of qualified immunity. Defendants have cited the case of Barr v. … Groff to be applicable to the instant case, it is nevertheless certain that the defendants are entitled to the defense of immunity even under the qualified immunity approach.

Stubblefield v. City of Jackson, Miss.

871 F. Supp. 903 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Dec 2, 1994

That is to say, the parameters of permissible voluntary affirmative action programs are far from being clearly established. … In the court’s opinion, Mayor Ditto is entitled to qualified immunity.

Rallis v. Stone

821 F. Supp. 466 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 26, 1993

Further, defendants Gebhardt, Latson, Young and Jones have qualified immunity against plaintiffs claims. … Once a defendant raises the defense of qualified immunity, then a plaintiff must come forward with facts to demonstrate that the constitutional rights allegedly violated were so clearly established that “any officer in the

Langton v. Maloney

527 F. Supp. 538 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Oct 20, 1981

Strickland, 420 U.S. 308 , 95 S.Ct. 992 , 43 L.Ed.2d 214 (1975) (qualified immunity available to school officials). The Court has endorsed qualified immunities of various degrees in a number of subsequent cases. … The objective element of the test would deny immunity to the defendants if “the constitutional right allegedly infringed by them was clearly established at the time of their challenged conduct, if they knew or should have

Puccini v. United States

978 F. Supp. 760 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 13, 1997

Plaintiff does not dispute the inapplicability of the Fourteenth Amendment, but she contends that those defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity and that her due process rights were violated. We disagree. … Plaintiff characterizes the clearly-established right that was violated as the right not to be detained beyond the expiration of her sentence.

Roes v. FLORIDA DEPT OF CHILDREN & FAMILY SERVICES

176 F. Supp. 2d 1310 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Sep 24, 2001

of qualified immunity. … Simply put, "If the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate."

Walker v. King County

630 F. Supp. 2d 1285 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 18, 2009

Qualified immunity protects state governmental officials from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “ ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Defendants next argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because “as of July 1, 2005, there was no ‘clearly established’ federal case law on the exact contours of the right.” (Mot. 11 (Dkt. No. 33).)

Hodge v. College of Southern Maryland

121 F. Supp. 3d 486 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 3, 2015

The Supreme Court “has drawn on principles of sovereign immunity to construe the Amend *495 ment to establish that an unconsenting State is immune from suits brought in federal. courts by her own citizens as well as by citizens … individual Defendants violated clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Walker-Serrano ex rel. Walker v. Leonard

168 F. Supp. 2d 332 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 9, 2001

It is a well-established legal principle that government officials may enjoy qualified immunity from suit. … was clearly established.

Jackson v. Russell

189 F. Supp. 3d 405 · District Court, D. Delaware · Jun 2, 2016

Qualified Immunity Defendant argues that he is protected by. qualified immunity from suits- in his individual capacity. … Whether defendant is entitled to qualified immunity requires a two-step inquiry: whether his acts violated a constitutional or statutory right and, if they did, whether that right was clearly established at the time of the

Booth v. King

346 F. Supp. 2d 751 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 29, 2004

Qualified, Immunity PPS defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. (Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. at 17-18.) Under Saucier v. … Second, was the right clearly established?

Brown v. Dep't of Pub. Safety & Corr. Servs.

383 F. Supp. 3d 519 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 13, 2019

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Defendants assert qualified immunity as a defense to Plaintiff's constitutional claims. … clearly established at the time of its alleged violation."

DER v. Connolly

825 F. Supp. 2d 991 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Jun 11, 2010

“The doctrine of qualified immunity 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 person … In light of this case law, the Court finds that it is not clearly established that statements of the nature of those allegedly made by Connolly to G.D.

National Coalition for Students With Disabilities v. Bush

170 F. Supp. 2d 1205 · District Court, N.D. Florida · Feb 20, 2001

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, officials cannot be held liable unless their actions violated clearly established law. … Plaintiffs have not, however, identified any other clearly established law that defendants allegedly violated.

Michel v. Beutler

888 F. Supp. 2d 861 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 3, 2012

That being so, I find the defendants’ claim of qualified immunity to be without merit. The Sixth Circuit enunciated the elements of qualified immunity in Cherrington v. … Despite the defendants’ contentions about qualified immunity, the law is and has long been clearly established with regard to the constitutional violations which a jury could find the defendants perpetrated, namely: • Presenting

Doe v. University of Colorado, Boulder ex rel. Board of Regents

255 F. Supp. 3d 1064 · District Court, D. Colorado · May 26, 2017

“Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established … “A right is clearly established in this circuit when a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision is on point, or if the clearly established weight of authority from other courts shows that the right must be as the plaintiff

Thornburg v. Dora

677 F. Supp. 581 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 21, 1988

Qualified immunity applies only to the extent relief is sought against an official in his individual capacity. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials are shielded from civil liability unless their conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Reinhart v. City of Maryland Heights

930 F. Supp. 410 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Jun 14, 1996

A public official is entitled to qualified immunity shielding him from liability in damages when his "conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Therefore, when Pickering 's fact-intensive balancing test is at issue, the asserted First Amendment right "can rarely be considered `clearly established' for purposes of the Harlow qualified immunity standard."

HOOTSTEIN v. Collins

679 F. Supp. 2d 169 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 14, 2010

clearly established at the time of defendants’ actions. … to qualified immunity. 5 .

Kenney v. Clay

172 F. Supp. 3d 628 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 23, 2016

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields police officers, like other public officials, from the specter of civil liability “when their ‘con *638 duct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ request for qualified immunity is denied. B.