Case law

Eisenberg v. Sternberg

641 F. Supp. 620 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Aug 25, 1986

Immunity may be absolute, affording protection regardless of motive, or qualified, providing immunity only for acts done reasonably and in good faith. … In that case, qualified immunity was applied to members of a federal prison’s institution discipline committee.

Yarborough v. Montgomery

554 F. Supp. 2d 611 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Apr 17, 2008

Qualified Immunity Even if this court were to find excessive force, Boone would still be entitled to qualified immunity. The Supreme Court in Harlow v. … Therefore, Defendant Boone is entitled to qualified immunity.

United States v. Lumumba

578 F. Supp. 100 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 17, 1983

Lumumba has not sought diplomatic immunity under the Treaty nor would it be possible for him to qualify for such immunity. … Article 31 establishes that: "A diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving state.”

Thomas v. City of Seattle

395 F. Supp. 2d 992 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 20, 2005

Qualified Immunity of Officer Martin Qualified immunity is an “entitlement not to stand trial or face the other burdens of litigation.” Saucier v. … As a result, the court denies Officer Martin’s motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. 3.

Hollenbaugh Ex Rel. Estate of Hollenbaugh v. Maurer

397 F. Supp. 2d 894 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Nov 10, 2005

Nevertheless, state actors lose this immunity when they violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 (holding that qualified immunity shields state actors only “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Strail v. Department of Children, Youth, & Families

62 F. Supp. 2d 519 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Aug 28, 1999

Qualified immunity In response to plaintiffs’ claims, defendants raise the defense of qualified immunity. … Within the context of family law, courts have found some difficulty in determining whether a constitutional right is clearly established to the degree necessary for a plaintiff to penetrate the qualified immunity defense.

Lin v. County of Monroe

66 F. Supp. 3d 341 · District Court, W.D. New York · Dec 8, 2014

Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from suit “ ‘unless [1] the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that [2] was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.’” … two of the qualified immunity test.”

Chilcote v. Mitchell

166 F. Supp. 2d 1313 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 16, 2001

The qualified immunity doctrine “shield[s] [government agents] from liability for civil damages so far as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Summary judgment based on qualified immunity is proper only if “under the plaintiffs version of the facts, and in light of the clearly established law, a reasonable officer could not have believed his conduct was unlawful

Abudiab v. City & County

833 F. Supp. 2d 1168 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 20, 2011

Plaintiff, in opposition, makes no argument with respect to defendants’ claim of qualified immunity, cites to no authority that would support the notion that the law was clearly established and therefore appears to concede … Accordingly, Georgopoulos is not entitled to qualified immunity because per Awabdy , it was clearly established that non-peace officers could be held liable for malicious prosecution where a “state or local official [ ] .

Perez Sanchez v. Public Building Authority

402 F. Supp. 2d 393 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Nov 29, 2005

A qualified immunity defense involves a three-prong inquiry: (1) whether a state official’s actions constituted a deprivation of the plaintiffs constitutional rights; (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time … Although the Defendants focus on prong three — the objective reasonableness prong — in making their case for qualified immunity, the Supreme Court has held that a court evaluating a claim of qualified immunity must always

Brown v. Western Connecticut State University

204 F. Supp. 2d 355 · District Court, D. Connecticut · May 8, 2002

Coughlin, 50 F.3d 114, 116 (2d Cir.1995) (distinguishing absolute immunity from qualified immunity, which protects government officials from civil suit if the official did not violate a clearly established right that a reasonable … 363 Court concludes that defendants are entitled to raise only the defense of qualified immunity.

Rodríguez Vázquez v. López Martínez

210 F. Supp. 2d 58 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jul 11, 2002

Fortunately for Defendants, the defense of qualified immunity has not been completely exhausted. … While Defendants have waived the qualified immunity defense during this pre-trial stage as a result of filing their Summary Judgment motion out of term, Defendants are free to argue the qualified immunity defense in a Rule

Smith v. Norris

877 F. Supp. 1296 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Feb 23, 1995

The Court denies the defendants’ claims of qualified immunity. 3. The Court grants Mr. … THE DEFENDANTS’ CLAIMS OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The hearing, which ended Friday, February 17, 1995, also dealt with the defendants’ claims of qualified immunity in connection with Mr.

Metro Wastewater Reclamation District v. Continental Casualty Co.

142 F.R.D. 471 · District Court, D. Colorado · Jan 23, 1992

Work product Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(3) establishes the parameters of the work product doctrine and sets forth the showing which must be made to overcome the qualified immunity provided to materials falling within its scope. … Thus, to be eligible for protection under the joint defense privilege, it must be established that the materials fall within the ambit of either the attorney-client privilege or the qualified immunity afforded to work product

Baker v. Tevault

District Court, D. Arizona · Oct 12, 2022

Qualified Immunity 15 Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their 16 conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … In deciding 18 if qualified immunity applies, the Court must determine: (1) whether the facts alleged show 19 the defendant’ s conduct violated a constitutional right; and (2) whether that right was 20 clearly established

Kenyon v. Cheshire County

District Court, D. New Hampshire · Mar 31, 1995

Qualified immunity protects defendants "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Febus-Rodriguez v. … The general rule of qualified immunity is that "governmental officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

In Re World Trade Center Disaster Site Litigation

469 F. Supp. 2d 134 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 8, 2007

An immediate appeal under the collateral order doctrine is not available where material facts are in genuine dispute: Under the collateral order doctrine ... the denial of a qualified-immunity-based motion for summary judgment … United States, 431 U.S. 651 , 97 S.Ct. 2034 , 52 L.Ed.2d 651 (1977); or the right of a government official to do his job without being sued for discretionary acts that do not violate a clearly established right.

Saar v. United States Department of Justice

705 F. Supp. 999 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 7, 1989

violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … In addition, defendants Lansing and May correctly assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity as to this claim.

Searles v. Pompilio

652 F. Supp. 2d 432 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 23, 2009

WHETHER POMPILIO IS ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Pompilio asserts that as a governmental official performing discretionary-functions, he is entitled to qualified immunity because his actions were in good faith and he had … The qualified immunity defense available to Pompilio is not available to the City. Vives v.

Dartland v. Metropolitan Dade County

681 F. Supp. 1539 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Mar 10, 1988

Qualified Immunity Pereira must show that at the time he dismissed Dartland, his “conduct did not violate clearly established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … In determining whether the law was clearly established, a court should be careful not to test the rule of law at such a level of generality as to render unavailable the defense of qualified immunity. Anderson v.