Case law

Burchett v. Cheek

637 F. Supp. 1249 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Dec 18, 1985

Cheek has raised a qualified immunity defense in an effort to insulate himself in his individual capacity from liability for the damages awarded by the jury. … Under the circumstances, he should have known the clearly established law applicable to his appointment of an assistant. He has failed to make out a qualified immunity defense.

Kegerise v. Susquehanna Twp. Sch. Dist.

325 F. Supp. 3d 564 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 21, 2018

As a threshold matter, the Court first addresses the applicability of qualified immunity infra . 1. … Legal Standard The doctrine of qualified immunity provides "that government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly

Miracle ex rel. Miracle v. Spooner

978 F. Supp. 1161 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Sep 26, 1997

Qualified Immunity. … It has been clearly established since at least 1987, when the Eleventh Circuit decided Taylor v.

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

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.”

Johnson v. Connecticut, Department of Corrections

392 F. Supp. 2d 326 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Sep 28, 2005

Johnson argues that this proffered reason must be pretextual because he was, in fact, more qualified for the position than Prince. Johnson has clearly established the first three prongs of his prima facie case. … Additionally, Johnson cannot establish his claim by arguing that he was clearly more qualified than Prince, thus either demonstrating an inference of discrimination, or, alternatively, that the employer’s proffered reasons

Martineau v. Kurland

36 F. Supp. 2d 39 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 8, 1999

Immunity The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has endorsed a two-prong test to evaluate a defense of qualified immunity. … established law.

Chishty v. TEXAS DEPT. OF AGING AND DISABILITY

562 F. Supp. 2d 790 · District Court, E.D. Texas · May 4, 2006

"The qualified immunity analysis is a two-step inquiry." Id. "First, a court must decide whether a plaintiffs allegation, if true, establishes a violation of a clearly established right." Id. (citation omitted). … "Even if the government official's conduct violates a clearly established right, the official is nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct was objectively reasonable." Id. (citation omitted).

Audio Odyssey, Ltd. v. Brenton First National Bank

284 F. Supp. 2d 1159 · District Court, S.D. Iowa · Sep 22, 2003

In arriving at that decision, the court concluded “the law governing excessive force claims was clearly established at the time of the arrest,” and for Fourth Amendment purposes, “ ‘the qualified immunity inquiry is the same … If the law was clearly established, the “second step is to determine if a reasonable officer could have believed, in fight of the clearly established law, that his conduct was lawful.” Id.

Norton v. City of South Portland

831 F. Supp. 2d 340 · District Court, D. Maine · Dec 9, 2011

Rather, this case is readily resolved on the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … under clearly established law.”

Eric Taylor v. The City of Manchester, et al.

2012 DNH 193 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Nov 20, 2012

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … the right was ‘clearly established’ at the 9 time of the defendant’s alleged violation”.

Beall v. Leavitt, et al.

District Court, D. New Hampshire · Aug 31, 1999

Section 1983 and Qualified Immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that, "qovernment officials performinq discretionary functions, qenerally are shielded from liability for civil damaqes insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

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.

Warkentine v. Soria

152 F. Supp. 3d 1269 · District Court, E.D. California · Jan 21, 2016

Qualified Immunity “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 … “For the second step in the qualified immunity analysis — whether the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the .conduct — the critical question is whether the contours of the right were ‘sufficiently

Abel v. Auglaize County Highway Department

276 F. Supp. 2d 724 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 4, 2003

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields public officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Once a qualified immunity defense is raised, the “plaintiff is obliged to present facts which if true would constitute a violation of clearly established law.” Dominque v.

Witter v. Pennsylvania National Guard

462 F. Supp. 299 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 14, 1978

Nothing in this chapter shall excuse noncompliance with any statute or ordinance of a State or political subdivision thereof establishing greater or additional rights or protections than the rights and protections established … Furthermore, the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity, as defined in Edelman v.

Adamian v. University of Nevada

359 F. Supp. 825 · District Court, D. Nevada · Apr 16, 1973

the defense of qualified governmental immunity. … Every circuit, except possibly the Ninth, has adopted the good faith test for qualified governmental immunity.

Warren v. Swanson

69 F. Supp. 2d 1047 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 4, 1999

to qualified immunity. … The" plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the constitutional right allegedly violated was clearly established “before the defendant acted or failed to act.” Id.

Teamsters Loc. U. No. 822 v. City of Portsmouth, Va.

423 F. Supp. 954 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Aug 11, 1975

“It is the existence of reasonable grounds for the belief formed at the time and in light of all the circumstances, coupled with good-faith belief, that affords a basis for qualified immunity of executive officers for acts … A compensatory award will be appropriate only if the school board member has acted with such an impermissible motivation or with such disregard of the student’s clearly established constitutional rights that his action cannot