Case law

Ahlers v. Schebil

966 F. Supp. 518 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Apr 30, 1997

Qualified Immunity. … the Washtenaw County Defendants’ qualified immunity, will examine if Ah-lers was deprived of this right. a.

Gray v. CITY OF HAMMOND, INDIANA

693 F. Supp. 2d 823 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 4, 2010

Qualified immunity shields government employees from liability for civil damages arising from actions within the scope of their employment unless their conduct violated “clearly established ... constitutional rights of which … of the actions was clearly established at the time of their occurrence.

Niziol v. Pasco County Dist. School Bd.

240 F. Supp. 2d 1194 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Aug 9, 2002

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil suit when they have acted within their discretionary functions and have not violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable … Little and Principal O’Donnell constituted violations of clearly established law. For this reason also, Cpl. Little and Principal O’Donnell are entitled to qualified immunity from this suit as pled. IV.

Bolon v. Rolla Public Schools

917 F. Supp. 1423 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Mar 6, 1996

As the Supreme Court has decided in the qualified immunity context, the existence of clearly-established constitutional rights is an issue of law for courts to determine. Harlow v. … Dist., 828 F.Supp. 1179, 1190-91 (E.D.Pa.1993) (all qualified immunity cases).

Columbian Financial Corp. v. Stork

216 F. Supp. 3d 1267 · District Court, D. Kansas · Oct 19, 2016

This court dismissed the action based on Younger abstention and qualified immunity. … The panel likewise concluded that “the delay in a postdeprivation hearing did not violate a clearly established constitutional right.” Id. at 402 .

Harper v. Blumenthal

478 F. Supp. 176 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 31, 1979

Butz incorporated the test for qualified immunity developed for state officials in Scheuer v. … Although not clearly established, it also appears that a cause of action for damages may be stated under the procedural due process component, if it is found that no other remedy is available.

Sarf v. Town of Huntington

702 F. Supp. 395 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 14, 1988

Qualified Immunity The Second Circuit has recently set forth the general principles regarding when a state official is entitled to a qualified immunity from suit: It is settled that “government officials performing discretionary … ... assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”

Bettis v. Bowser

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 21, 2020

“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 … Defendants “are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.”’

Arney v. Geo. A. Hormel & Co.

53 F.R.D. 179 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Sep 27, 1971

Thus as to the documents falling within the work products immunity, plaintiff’s request for production is premature and not based on facts sufficient to overcome the qualified immunity provided by Rule 26(b) (3). … The documents preceding plaintiff’s termination of employment clearly fall outside the work product immunity. But defendant claims that these are protected by the attorney-client privilege.

Capozzi v. City of Olean, NY

910 F. Supp. 900 · District Court, W.D. New York · Nov 28, 1995

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.

Brown v. Coughlin

704 F. Supp. 41 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 4, 1989

Government officials enjoy qualified immunity against damages suits “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Only Henry raises qualified immunity as a defense.

McBride v. Cahoone

820 F. Supp. 2d 623 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 17, 2011

Qualified Immunity With Respect To Probation Officer Don Cahoone Under the qualified immunity principle, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar … We analyze two issues when evaluating a qualified immunity question: (1) whether the facts that a plaintiff has alleged or shown make out a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right at issue was “clearly

Parkes v. County of San Diego

345 F. Supp. 2d 1071 · District Court, S.D. California · Jun 23, 2004

*1088 relationship are barred as they are entitled to qualified immunity. 1. … Legal Standard Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Rebolar v. City of Chicago

897 F. Supp. 2d 723 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 21, 2012

“Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for damages if their actions did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Catlin v. … are not entitled to qualified immunity.

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.

McNeal v. MacHt

763 F. Supp. 1458 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · May 3, 1991

Under Harlow and its progeny, the “qualified immunity analysis entails a purely objective inquiry to determine whether at the time of the alleged illegal act, the right asserted by the plaintiff was clearly established in … Morgan, 914 F.2d 846 , 851 (7th Cir.1990) (struggling with the bounds of the qualified immunity doctrine).

Santos v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPT. OF CHILDREN

299 F. Supp. 2d 1070 · District Court, C.D. California · Jan 6, 2004

Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Thus, this Court finds plaintiff does not have a clearly established liberty interest, and defendant social workers are entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff's Section 1983 claims.

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

Looby v. City of Hartford

152 F. Supp. 2d 181 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Jan 5, 2001

A government official sued in his individual capacity is entitled to qualified immunity “where it was objectively reasonable to believe that [his] acts did not violate clearly established federally protected rights.” … The § 1983 equal protection -claims against him and his affirmative defense of qualified immunity remain for trial. b.

Creager v. Board of Educ. of Whitley County, Ky.

914 F. Supp. 1457 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Feb 9, 1996

However, it has long been clearly established that one may not, acting under color of state law, separate another from employment upon the basis of one’s exercise of the freedoms of speech and/or association. … Thus the defendants’ motion to dismiss on the ground of qualified immunity will be denied.