Case law

Sclafani v. Spitzer

734 F. Supp. 2d 288 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 27, 2010

Qualified Prosecutors and police officers “performing discretionary functions generally are granted a qualified immunity and are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … Plaintiffs have failed to establish a “plus” factor.

Hinterberger v. Iroquois School District

898 F. Supp. 2d 772 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 26, 2012

Because the constitutional right at issue here was clearly established as of March 3, 2004, Loftus’ assertion of qualified immunity must be denied. … Delie, 257 F.3d 309, 321 (3d Cir.2001) (“District court opinions may be relevant to the determination of when a right was clearly established for qualified immunity analysis.”).

Doe v. Rumsfeld

800 F. Supp. 2d 94 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 2, 2011

The doctrine of qualified immunity generally shields “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … Where, however, the plaintiffs well-pleaded factual allegations, taken as true, show the violation of a clearly-established constitutional right, a defendant’s motion to dismiss on grounds of qualified immunity must be denied

Benford v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.

502 F. Supp. 1148 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 14, 1980

The Butz Court utilized the definition of qualified immunity that the Court applied to state officials in Scheuer . … In his dissenting opinion in McSurley , Judge Wilkey clearly assumed that absent the absolute protection of the Speech or Debate Clause the legislative defendants would have access to qualified official immunity.

Malone v. ECONOMY BOROUGH MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY

669 F. Supp. 2d 582 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 9, 2009

entitled to qualified immunity. … his or her actions violated clearly established law.”

Patterson v. Bd. of Probation and Parole

851 F. Supp. 194 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 9, 1994

Therefore, because the law forbidding such searches was not “clearly established” at the time of the incident, the officer in this case is entitled to qualified immunity. … I find that the constitutional right against arrest without probable cause is a “clearly established” one, and therefore defendant McGuire is not shielded by qualified immunity. Patzig v.

Imhoff v. Temas

67 F. Supp. 3d 700 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 12, 2014

Qualified Immunity Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to immunity where their “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Defendants make a cursory and broad sweeping claim to their entitlement to qualified immunity, contending that the allegations are insufficient to establish that any Defendant knowingly violated a clearly established constitutional

Doe v. Berberich

704 F. Supp. 269 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 9, 1988

The complaint clearly alleges a violation of the established right against unwarranted strip searches, and therefore meets the heightened pleadings standard of Bivens actions which requires plaintiffs to “specify the ‘clearly … The doctrine of qualified immunity protects from suit "all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 , 106 S.Ct. 1092, 1096 , 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986).

Thompson v. Sweet

194 F. Supp. 2d 97 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 11, 2002

Qualified Immunity Officer Sweet seeks qualified immunity with respect to plaintiffs claims of false arrest, unlawful imprisonment and malicious prosecution. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields police officers acting in their official capacity from suits *103 for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , unless their actions violate clearly-established rights of which an objectively

Sacco v. Pataki

114 F. Supp. 2d 264 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 25, 2000

Harlow establishes a two part test for qualified immunity. First, a court must determine whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time the defendant acted^ As the Court explained in Mitchell v. … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 , 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2815 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985), “[ujnless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to

Thomas v. District of Columbia

887 F. Supp. 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 23, 1995

Qualified Immunity Officials like Sergeant Ingram are entitled to qualified immunity from civil damage claims for constitutional and statutory violations asserted against them in their personal capacity unless their conduct … Sergeant Ingram is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Crowe v. County of San Diego

303 F. Supp. 2d 1050 · District Court, S.D. California · Feb 17, 2004

“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.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202 , 121 S.Ct. 2151 . … may be correct that this issue has not been addressed by the Supreme Court, Ninth Circuit law can “clearly establish” the law for qualified immunity purposes.

Maraj v. Massachusetts

836 F. Supp. 2d 17 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 13, 2011

immunity, which “protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights....” 61 The relevant inquiry here, then, is … In Pearson , the Supreme Court grappled with a previously established two-step approach to determine whether qualified immunity bars suit.

Caceres v. International Air Transport Ass'n

46 F.R.D. 89 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 29, 1969

Since plaintiffs do not contend that the action qualifies under Rule 23(b) (1) or 23(b) (2) for treatment as a class action, the principal issue is whether it qualifies under Rule 23(b) (3), which provides that a class action … If the antitrust immunity under § 1384 is unavailable, then it would seem that defendants do come within the well established rule of Klor’s Inc. v.

Huminski v. Rutland County Sheriff's Department

211 F. Supp. 2d 520 · District Court, D. Vermont · Jul 11, 2002

Qualified Immunity State and municipal officers sued under Section 1983 are immune from claims for monetary relief “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … “Clearly Established” Rights The genuine factual dispute regarding Defendants’ motivations prevents the Court from granting Defendants’ motions for summary judgment under the second step of the qualified immunity test.

Akbarnia v. Deming

845 F. Supp. 788 · District Court, D. Kansas · Feb 7, 1994

Thus, summary judgment may be entered “against a party who fails to make a sufficient showing to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s ease.” Celotex Corp. v. … Plaintiffs contend that defendants cannot qualify for judicial function immunity because (1) their evaluations were performed according to a statutory duty and therefore were ministerial in nature; and (2) judicial function

Douris v. City of Henderson

District Court, D. Nevada · Jul 10, 2023

ECF No. 7 20 at 16–26. 8 “Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly 9 established statutory or constitutional rights … immunity based on the lack 2 of any clearly established right that they could have violated.

Linda Barron, Individually and as Executrix of the Estates of Leo and Anna Barron v. Benchmark Senior Living, LLC

2023 DNH 013 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Feb 6, 2022

As an alternative remedy when immunity applies, the Act established the Covered Countermeasure Process Fund. § 247d-6e(a). … Benchmark’s defensive preemption argument is a red herring; a rehash of its claim for immunity dressed in different clothes. 16 Section (b)(8) of “the PREP Act clearly preempts incompatible

Bradford v. State of Hawaii

846 F. Supp. 1411 · District Court, D. Hawaii · Mar 10, 1994

The parties agree that qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights … Qualified immunity “generally turns on the ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the action, Harlow, 457 U.S. at 819 [ 102 S.Ct. at 2738 ], assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it

Lach v. Robb

679 F. Supp. 508 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 16, 1988

The relevant inquiry is the objective question whether a reasonable officer could have believed the defendant’s action to be lawful, in light of clearly established law. Id. at -, 107 S.Ct. at 3040 , 97 L.Ed.2d at 532 . … Because the university security officers have qualified immunity on the § 1983 claim, they are entitled to summary judgment on the § 1983 claim.