Case law

Levesque v. Town of Vernon

341 F. Supp. 2d 126 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Sep 30, 2004

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields [government officials] acting in their official capacity from suits for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , unless their actions violate clearly-established rights of which an objectively … Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because Levesque could prove that their actions violated clearly established law.

Farris v. Moeckel

664 F. Supp. 881 · District Court, D. Delaware · Jul 2, 1987

Qualified Immunity. Chief Bowers, who has been sued in his personal capacity, asserts that he is immune from suit under the qualified immunity doctrine established in Harlow v. … Chief Bowers’ Motion to Dismiss on the ground of qualified immunity is denied.

Ferrel v. Brown

847 F. Supp. 1524 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Oct 19, 1993

LEXIS 11933, at *9-10 (D.Idaho July 19, 1993) (holding individual IRS agents are shielded by qualified immunity from constitutional tort claims arising from tax levies); Waring Park v. … Clearly, the plaintiff is unable to seek award of litigation costs from this court proceeding as the substantive claims are dismissed and thus she has not prevailed.

Woods v. Lemonds

804 F. Supp. 1106 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Sep 28, 1992

Defendant claims he is immune from any liability in this case under the doctrine of qualified immunity. The doctrine of qualified immunity for a police officer who obtains a search warrant was established in Malley v. … immunity.

JOHN CHISM BAIL BONDS, INC. v. Pennington

656 F. Supp. 2d 929 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Aug 31, 2009

are entitled to qualified immunity. … ; that they are not protected by sovereign immunity because they acted with malice; and that they are not protected by qualified immunity because it was deprived of a clearly established constitutional or statutory right.

Palmer v. Hampton

District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 9, 2021

They also assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity. See id. at 19-20. … Thus, to defeat qualified immunity with respect to each Defendant, Palmer must show both that the specific Defendant committed a constitutional violation, and that the constitutional right violated was clearly established

Howe v. Town of North Andover

784 F. Supp. 2d 24 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 23, 2011

Because “it is not always possible to determine before any discovery has occurred whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, [] courts often evaluate qualified immunity defenses at the summary judgment stage.” … An official is entitled to qualified immunity unless: 1) the facts that plaintiffs have alleged or shown make out a violation of a constitutional right and 2) the right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of the

Badillo-Santiago v. Andreu-Garcia

70 F. Supp. 2d 84 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Oct 5, 1999

Second, regarding the second prong of the test, he has clearly alleged that he was qualified and met the eligibility requirements for the receipt of services by a public entity, because he was a defendant in a civil trial … . § 1983 are barred by the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity It is well established that judges enjoy absolute judicial immunity from liability for damages arising out of performance of their judicial duties, re *91

Patrick v. City of Chicago

662 F. Supp. 2d 1039 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 30, 2009

Qualified immunity should be granted when the officials’ conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … The dispute over qualified immunity turns on whether the right to privacy that Defendants are alleged to have violated was clearly established at the time of Plaintiffs alleged injury.

Kline v. Republic of El Salvador

603 F. Supp. 1313 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 14, 1985

Qualified immunity from suit is available to executive officials to the extent that, in *1319 the performance of discretionary functions, “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … VI Conclusion All the claims for damages under this lawsuit must be dismissed as barred by sovereign immunity or qualified individual immunity.

JS, Ex Rel. Duck v. ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY SCHOOL

368 F. Supp. 2d 522 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Apr 29, 2005

Qualified Immunity The defense of qualified immunity can be asserted by officials sued for monetary relief in their individual capacities. … Because plaintiff cannot demonstrate that the due process rights to which he alleges entitlement were clearly established, the individual defendants are protected by qualified immunity.

Crosby v. Hospital Authority of Valdosta

873 F. Supp. 1568 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Jan 12, 1995

In determining whether the denial of Harlow-type qualified immunity to a defendant satisfied the “collateral order” doctrine, the Court stated: An appellate court reviewing the denial of the defendant’s claim of immunity … The existence of HCQIA immunity, like qualified immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , is properly determined at the summary judgment stage. Bryan, 33 F.3d at 1332 -33 & n. 26.

Mann Ex Rel. Terrazas v. Lopez

404 F. Supp. 2d 932 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Oct 11, 2005

Qualified Immunity with respect to claims asserted against Sheriff Lopez in his individual capacity Evaluating qualified immunity is a two-step process. … By alleging deliberate indifference to [the decedents’] clearly established Fourteenth Amendment rights, the plaintiffs have cleared the first hurdle in defeating the defendants’ qualified immunity defense.”

Kirkwood v. DeLONG

683 F. Supp. 2d 823 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 1, 2010

Qualified Immunity Finally, the Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment based on a theory of qualified immunity. … Government officials, including police officers, are protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity for actions that could have been reasonably believed to be lawful in light of clearly established law. Anderson v.

Cole v. Fluery

2015 DNH 030 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Feb 20, 2015

Turning to qualified immunity, the court of appeals for this circuit has described the purpose of that doctrine and the framework for applying it: Qualified immunity is a judge-made doctrine designed to curtail … Second, we inquire whether the violated right was clearly established at the time that the offending conduct occurred. See id.

Pippenger v. Gruppe

883 F. Supp. 1201 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 6, 1994

This was due to the nature of the qualified immunity defense, which imposed upon the plaintiff the burden of proving malice or unreasonable disregard of his clearly established constitutional rights in order to rebut the … The party resisting disclosure first has the burden of establishing that documents qualify as work product. Hodges, Grant & Kaufmann v. U.S.

Tubbesing v. Arnold

98 F.R.D. 555 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Aug 11, 1983

Defendants further claim they are protected by a qualified immunity which shields them as public officials. … Further factual questions remain as to whether the defendants, even if protected by qualified immunity, acted with malice or recklessness so as to preclude them from such immunity.

Myers v. Seneca Niagara Casino

488 F. Supp. 2d 166 · District Court, N.D. New York · Sep 26, 2006

The only other way a Nation may be sued under the FMLA is if the Nation itself expressly and clearly waived and relinquished its immunity from suit. … shown the existence of any agreement or contract by the terms of which the Seneca Nation clearly, expressly and unequivocally waived its sovereign immunity.

Barnard v. Lackawanna County

194 F. Supp. 3d 337 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 8, 2016

Judgment will be granted if “the movant clearly establishes there are no material issues of fact, and he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Sikirica v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 214, 220 (3d Cir.2005). … from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Baron v. Hickey

242 F. Supp. 2d 66 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 31, 2003

Sheriff Rouse’s Qualified Immunity Defendant Rouse claims that he is entitled to summary judgment because he enjoys qualified immunity from suit against plaintiffs § 1983 claims. … “Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable