Case law

Estate of Jackson v. City of Rochester

705 F. Supp. 779 · District Court, W.D. New York · Jan 31, 1989

Officer Gonzalez — Qualified Immunity In Harlow v. … One of the several ways in which an official may establish a defense of qualified immunity is if he shows that “it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that his acts did not violate [clearly established] rights.”

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.

Wells v. City of Dayton

495 F. Supp. 2d 797 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 21, 2006

In the context of a claim of qualified immunity in a case arising out of the alleged use of excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, the Supreme Court explained: When confronted with a claim .of qualified immunity … In Brosseau , the Supreme Court restated the analytical framework that is applicable to the second step of the qualified immunity inquiry: Qualified immunity shields an officer from suit when she makes a decision that, even

Morrison v. Stepanski

839 F. Supp. 1130 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 3, 1993

and Stepanski assert that ■they are entitled to qualified immunity from civil damages under Harlow v. … As the proponent of qualified immunity, defendants bear the burden of establishing that it applies to them. Stoneking, supra, 882 F.2d at 726 .

Steinbrecher v. Oswego Police Officer Dickey

138 F. Supp. 2d 1103 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 13, 2001

Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for civil damages “ ‘[if] their conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Wollin v. … standards were clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Nykiel v. Borough of Sharpsburg

778 F. Supp. 2d 573 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 9, 2011

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 … If the court *588 concludes that defendants’ conduct did violate a “clearly established” constitutional or statutory right, then it must deny defendant the protection afforded by qualified immunity. Id.

Epps v. Gray

62 F. Supp. 3d 77 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 31, 2014

Mem. at 8-9, they assert qualified immunity as a defense, id. at 9. … And it is presumed that these rights were clearly established on August 12, 2011.

Williams v. Payne

73 F. Supp. 2d 785 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Nov 3, 1999

The first step in determining whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity is to determine whether the alleged acts violated clearly established law. See id. … Since qualified immunity provides immunity from suit in federal court, “a party may immediately appeal a district court’s denial of qualified immunity.” Blake, 179 F.3d at 1007 (citing Behrens v.

Sayan-Resto v. Berrios

933 F. Supp. 2d 252 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Mar 27, 2013

These were violations to clearly established rights. In light of the foregoing, defendant’s request to dismiss Caldero-López’ complaint on qualified immunity is DENIED. … A finding that a right was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation suffices.

Kilcullen v. New York State Department of Transportation

33 F. Supp. 2d 133 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jan 19, 1999

It is well-established that immunity under the Eleventh Amendment “affects our subject matter jurisdiction.” Atlantic Healthcare Benefits Trust v. … It is now established that Congress may abrogate the States’ Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity only by the power vested to it under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Mackinac Tribe v. Jewell

87 F. Supp. 3d 127 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2015

of the complaint seeks an order directing the Secretary to conduct an election pursuant to the IRA, Congress has clearly waived the United States’ sovereign immunity with respect to this suit. … Consequently, subsection (d)(2) is, at most, ambiguous as far as the defense of sovereign immunity is concerned, and that section therefore fails to qualify as the type of unequivocal and explicit waiver of sovereign immunity

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.

Puerto Rico Telephone Co. v. San Juan Cable Co.

196 F. Supp. 3d 207 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jul 25, 2016

the state statute “clearly establishes the state’s intent to countenance collective rate setting among motor carriers,” and remanding for findings as to the second prong); Cent. … PRTC admitted OneLink's paragraph 11, but interposed a qualified response.

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

Kane v. Yung Won Han

550 F. Supp. 120 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 28, 1982

Fisher, 13 Wall. 335 , 20 L.Ed. 646 (1872), established that in spite of the sweeping “every person” language in § 1983 judges retained their traditional common-law immunity. … Both absolute and qualified immunity are predicated on the need for independent decision making.

Gorman v. Bartch

925 F. Supp. 653 · District Court, W.D. Missouri · May 13, 1996

Murray, 57 F.3d 1340 (4th Cir.1995), the Fourth Circuit held that state prison officials were entitled to qualified immunity in a suit alleging violations of the ADA Despite the different perspective presented when considering … qualified immunity, much of the Fourth Circuit’s reasoning easily transfers to the ease at bar: a person who has been arrested “is not normally thought of as one who would have occasion ‘to meet[ ] the essential eligibility

Dopp v. Honaker

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Sep 30, 2019

insufficient to establish a constitutional violation.”). … Mata, 427 F.3d at 761 (granting qualified immunity where “[n]o reasonable jury could conclude” that the prison nurse acted with deliberate indifference to the prisoner’s medical needs).

Tristani Ex Rel. Karnes v. Richman

609 F. Supp. 2d 423 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 25, 2009

The relevant actions taken by Richman and Houstoun were clearly “discretionary” for purposes of qualified immunity. … Richman and Houstoun are entitled to qualified immunity due to the law concerning these issues being not clearly established at the time of the discretionary actions in question.

Hernandez Acevedo v. Aponte Roque

684 F. Supp. 18 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Mar 25, 1988

The matter is submitted on defendants’ amended motion for summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity, opposed by plaintiffs, as well as on defendants’ motion to dismiss on eleventh amendment grounds. … The above analysis indicates it was far from “clearly established” that dismissing the plaintiffs once their terms expired would violate any law.

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.