Case law

Parnell v. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia

926 F. Supp. 570 · District Court, N.D. West Virginia · Jan 29, 1996

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, or Marietta, Ohio) who would, consequently, not qualify as a responsible local attorney under the Rule. … The Rule clearly survives scrutiny under the Privileges and Immunities Clause.

Wilbert v. Quarterman

647 F. Supp. 2d 760 · District Court, S.D. Texas · May 11, 2009

Defendants Have Not Established A Basis For Dismissal On Qualified Immunity In Their Motion To Dismiss. … 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

Feliciano Angulo v. Rivera Cruz

671 F. Supp. 103 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 17, 1987

We find as a matter of law and in accordance with jurisprudence, that plaintiff’s inherent duties are such that defendants could not have known or reasonably should have known that their conduct would violate clearly established … Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from damages and a dismissal of the claim for injunctive relief. b.

Thorncreek Apartments III, LLC v. Village of Park Forest

970 F. Supp. 2d 828 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 30, 2013

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects 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 … The second sentence states a conclusion without providing reasoning or authority, so the Village’s argument on the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity is forfeited. See Arlin-Golf, LLC v.

Hansen v. Schubert

459 F. Supp. 2d 973 · District Court, E.D. California · Nov 20, 2006

A law officer can establish qualified immunity by demonstrating (1) that the law governing the officer’s conduct was not clearly established at the time of the challenged actions, or (2) that under the clearly established … Defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the law applicable to these circumstances was not clearly established at the time of the search.

Howell v. Sanders

755 F. Supp. 2d 789 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Jun 17, 2010

immune from liability for giving advice to the police, but to allow police officers only qualified immunity for following the advice.” … Qualified Immunity The court also holds in the alternative that the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity for all of the actions complained of.

Watts v. City of Jackson

664 F. Supp. 2d 680 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Oct 14, 2009

Qualified Immunity Defendants claim that the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from claims brought against them in their individual and official capacities. … “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

Lopez v. SAN LUIS VALLEY, BOCES

977 F. Supp. 1422 · District Court, D. Colorado · Oct 17, 1997

the clearly established law. … Therefore, defendants Espinoza and Henderson did not violate any "clearly established" law in 1994 and 1995, and they are entitled to summary judgment on their defense of qualified immunity.

Reyes v. North Texas Tollway Authority

830 F. Supp. 2d 194 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Nov 14, 2011

Qualified Immunity The individual defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages *210 insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Draine v. Bauman

708 F. Supp. 2d 693 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 16, 2010

The Qualified Immunity Argument Of course, that is not the end of the inquiry. A police officer might nonetheless be entitled to qualified immunity. … Although the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that there has been a constitutional violation and that the constitutional standards were clearly established at the time of the violation, Mannoia v.

Dever v. Kelly

566 F. Supp. 2d 703 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 2, 2008

Government officials performing discretionary functions are afforded a qualified immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … A fortiori, no such constitutional rights were clearly established on that date and the Defendant Deputies are entitled to qualified immunity from any § 1983 liability for their acts.

Chien Van Bui v. City of San Francisco

61 F. Supp. 3d 877 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 25, 2014

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as then-conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … “Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Id. (citing Anderson v.

Bibart v. Stachowiak

888 F. Supp. 864 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 27, 1995

Qualified immunity will shield the officers from suit if “a reasonable officer could have believed [Bibart’s arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting] officers possessed … The district court rejected the officers’ contention that they were entitled to qualified immunity, and the officers appealed.

Harrison v. Christopher

489 F. Supp. 2d 375 · District Court, D. Delaware · May 25, 2007

Christopher A public official is entitled to qualified immunity if the official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights that a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … If not, the inquiry ends, and the officer is entitled to qualified immunity. Id.

Jacobson v. Nashua et al.

2002 DNH 120 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Jun 19, 2002

If s o , the second step “is to ask whether the right was clearly established.” Id. … “Clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity means that the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.”

York v. City of Burlington

225 F. Supp. 3d 341 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Dec 22, 2016

“Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from personal-capacity liability for civil damages under § 1983, insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Officials will receive immunity unless the § 1983 claim satisfies a two-prong test: (1) the allegations, if true, substantiate a violation of a federal statutory or constitutional right and (2) the right was “clearly established

Piscottano v. Town of Somers

396 F. Supp. 2d 187 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Oct 14, 2005

IV Qualiñed Immunity Mello also contends that he is entitled to summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity. 22 As a general matter, “[t]he qualified immunity defense is intended to strike a fair balance between … Even if a clearly established statutory or constitutional right is violated, qualified immunity is nonetheless a defense if the official’s unlawful actions were objectively reasonable as measured by reference to clearly established

Rodriguez v. California Highway Patrol

89 F. Supp. 2d 1131 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 13, 2000

Plaintiffs thus clearly are alleging that a substantial part of the events giving rise to this action occurred in the Northern District. … or all of the immunities bar Plaintiffs’ claims. 3 Davison by Sims v.

Pringle v. United States

419 F. Supp. 289 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Jun 22, 1976

It is well established that the time for filing a claim or an action for wrongful death would commence to run at the date of death, since the cause of action accrues at that time. Kington v. … has been commenced by one who is not so qualified by the Probate Court.

Adams v. Township of Champion, Ohio

68 F. Supp. 2d 906 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 21, 1999

Government officials are generally entitled to qualified immunity when performing discretionary functions as long as the conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … In order to assert a violation of a “clearly established” right and defeat a qualified immunity defense “[t]he contours of a right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing