Case law

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.

McCarthy v. Boozman

212 F. Supp. 2d 945 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jul 25, 2002

The religious exemption provided in Section 6-18-702(d)(2) clearly runs afoul of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, because the … The language of the statute clearly indicates that the legislature’s dominant purpose was to establish a comprehensive immunization program for school children, and the statute is complete and capable of execution without

Shauf v. Rios

313 F. Supp. 3d 1262 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Mar 2, 2018

To overcome this immunity, Plaintiff "must establish (1) that the defendant violated a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) that this right was clearly established at the time of the defendant's conduct." Dodds v. … With regard to Williams's alleged deliberate indifference, Plaintiff also defeats qualified immunity.

Sabin v. Miller

423 F. Supp. 2d 943 · District Court, S.D. Iowa · Mar 7, 2006

Defendants may nevertheless be entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, if they can show the violated right was not clearly established at the time of the violation. … Defendants assert they are entitled to qualified immunity from Sabin’s claims because it was not clearly established on October 2, 2002, that they might be liable for violation of the Fourth Amendment under the circumstances

Thornburg v. Peters

155 F. Supp. 2d 984 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jun 28, 2001

Second, they assert qualified immunity because the law in 1997 did not clearly establish that they could not use political party affiliation as a qualification to hire an ISI II. … The Defendants also are not entitled to summary judgment on their qualified immunity defense.

Smart v. Goord

441 F. Supp. 2d 631 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 27, 2006

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects state actors sued in their individual capacity from suits for monetary damages where ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Therefore, state officials are shielded by qualified immunity if either “(a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that his action

Finsel v. Hartshorn

200 F. Supp. 2d 960 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Apr 25, 2002

Cruppenink argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. … As noted, qualified immunity applies unless the defendant violated a “clearly established” constitutional right.

Richardson v. Smith

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 24, 2018

He is therefore entitled to qualified immunity in his individual capacity. … As the Court explained, Smith himself is protected from this allegation by qualified immunity—no clearly established law required him to institute such policies.

Murphree v. US Bank of Utah, N.A.

282 F. Supp. 2d 1294 · District Court, D. Utah · Jun 26, 2003

While the Tenth Circuit noted that it could not find any Utah law directly on point, it stated that “this qualified immunity is well established in both federal and state courts across the country.” Id. … Regarding Applicability of Qualified Immunity at 4 (emphasis added).

Billups v. New York State

885 F. Supp. 38 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 21, 1995

Moreover, the privilege of qualified immunity provides an additional reason for denying this claim. … Once qualified immunity is pleaded, as it has been in this action, public officials performing discretionary functions are protected from personal liability unless their conduct “violate[s] clearly established statutory or

Clark v. Conahan

737 F. Supp. 2d 239 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 25, 2010

Qualified Immunity Brulo argues that the remaining activity is protected by qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects government officials from suit for conduct that does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would be aware. Pearson v.

INTERNATIONAL PARKING MANAGEMENT, INC. v. Padilla

634 F. Supp. 2d 174 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Sep 11, 2007

Section 1983 claims—Qualified Immunity. … “If not, the officer is entitled to qualified immunity, and [the Court] need not consider whether the asserted right was “clearly established.” ” Id.

Parker v. Tyson Foods, Inc.

District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Jan 3, 2020

Workforce Comm’n-Civil Rights Div., 775 F.3d 685, 688 (5th Cir. 2014) (“[A]n employee’s ‘better education, work experience, and longer tenure with the company do not establish that he is clearly better qualified.’” … Parker has not established pretext by demonstrating that he was clearly more qualified for the promotion than Merrell.

McComas v. Brickley

819 F. Supp. 2d 852 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 13, 2011

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights reasonably knowable at the … If such a violation has been established by the facts, the court must determine whether the law was “clearly established” at the relevant time. Id.

Cheatwood v. City of Oxford

785 F. Supp. 926 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Feb 4, 1992

The court next turns to the qualified immunity defense asserted by Merrill and Smith. 44 The Supreme Court formulated the doctrine of qualified immunity in Harlow v. … If the law that defendants allegedly violated was not clearly established, then defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Rich, 841 F.2d at 1564 .

Community Hospital of Rockland County v. United States (In Re Community Hospital of Rockland County)

5 B.R. 11 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 2, 1980

However, Section 106 of the Bankruptcy Code was intended to qualify Section 1111(a) with respect to the Government. … Because Section 724 is clearly part of Sub-chapter II of Chapter 7, Section 724 is not available to a debtor proceeding in Chapter 11. Section 724 applies only to Chapter 7 proceedings.

Big Cats of Serenity Springs, Inc. v. Vilsack

84 F. Supp. 3d 1179 · District Court, D. Colorado · Mar 25, 2015

Qualified Immunity Defendants seek qualified immunity on Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claim against the Inspector Defendants for *1191 monetary relief. Motion [# 23] at 11-21. … Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person in their position