Case law

Collazo v. County of Suffolk

163 F. Supp. 3d 27 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 17, 2016

plaintiffs clearly established constitutional and statutory rights.” … Thus, the Court need only determine the issue of qualified immunity.

Addison v. City of Baker City

258 F. Supp. 3d 1207 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 29, 2017

Defendants also argue that Lohner is protected under the doctrine of qualified immunity. a. … Clearly established To determine whether'a government official’s conduct violates clearly established law, “a court must ask whether it would have been clear tó a reasonable officer that the alleged conduct was unlawful in

Davis v. City of San Jose

69 F. Supp. 3d 1001 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 24, 2014

Moreover, De-fendánts contend that Plaintiff has failed' to establish that they are not entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 15. … Past the pleading stage, Defendants *1007 may introduce evidence of their version of events, and it may well be that Defendants can establish qualified immunity at summary judgment. .

Hotchkiss v. Garno

883 F. Supp. 2d 719 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jul 12, 2012

The Sixth Circuit concluded that the students’ rights had been violated, but that the school officials were entitled to qualified immunity because the searches did not violate clearly established rights. … Nevertheless, the court concluded that the teachers were entitled to qualified immunity because “at the time that the searches occurred, the law did not clearly establish the unlawfulness of the defendants’ actions.”

MacE v. City of Akron

989 F. Supp. 949 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 16, 1998

Sammon is protected against judgment on Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … A state official is entitled to qualified immunity when her conduct was objectively reasonable in light of clearly established' rules and the information then possessed by the official. Id. (citing Anderson v.

Strauss v. Alabama State Bar

520 F. Supp. 173 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Aug 17, 1981

The Alaska court recognized that the “practice of law by qualified persons is a ‘fundamental right’ triggering scrutiny under the privileges and immunities clause.” 620 P.2d at 643 . 5 Since the practice of law qualifies … The purposes of the clause have been variously stated as to establish a “norm of comity,” Austin v.

Lu v. Derr

District Court, D. Hawaii · Mar 10, 2023

Because no Bivens remedy is available to Lu, the court does not reach Defendants’ qualified immunity argument. See Pettibone v. … Russell, 59 F.4th 449, 457 (9th Cir. 2023) (“Because [plaintiff] has no cause of action under Bivens, we need not consider whether [defendant] would be entitled to qualified immunity.”). 3 Under

Almanza v. Salazar

33 F. Supp. 3d 747 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Aug 29, 2013

“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 a reasonable person … unreasonable in light of the law that was clearly established at the time of the actions complained of.”

Rock v. Lowe

893 F. Supp. 1573 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · Jul 14, 1995

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from personal civil liability under federal law unless their conduct violates a “clearly established [federal] statutory or constitutional … In asserting qualified immunity, an official cannot rely on “ ‘general eonclusory allegation’ or ‘broad legal truisms’ ” to show that a right is clearly established. Post v.

Marshall v. N.Y. State Pub. High Sch. Athletic Ass'n, Inc.

374 F. Supp. 3d 276 · District Court, W.D. New York · Mar 15, 2019

If the official acts executively, the official probably has qualified, good-faith immunity."); see also Stump v. … By comparison, the Commissioner's regulation establishing the four-year athletic eligibility standard *290 (hereinafter, the "Duration of Competition Rule") 3 does not clearly explain the type of appellate process afforded

Gonzalez v. Cecil County, Maryland

221 F. Supp. 2d 611 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 4, 2002

In the alternative, the Nurse Defendants assert that they are entitled to the defense of qualified immunity. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions are not liable for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Downing v. West Haven Board of Ed.

162 F. Supp. 2d 19 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Aug 24, 2001

reasonable in light of clearly established law at the time. … Accordingly, the defendants' concerns about violating the Establishment Clause carry greater weight. 6 . The federal qualified immunity defense arising under Harlow v.

Redondo Construction, Co. v. Izquierdo

929 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Dec 3, 2012

immunity; and (3) plaintiff cannot prevail on its article 1802 claim because it cannot establish all elements of a damages claim. … As discussed above, the Court disposes of the qualified immunity contention on the merits.

Johnson v. Burns

252 F. Supp. 3d 353 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 4, 2017

Wright also pursues a finding of qualified immunity. But this bid fails because, on the facts found by the jury, the qualified immunity doctrine would not entitle Wright to judgment in his favor. … It would have supported a claim of qualified immunity as to Bums. But because it does not bear on Wright’s knowledge, it has no bearing on Wright’s qualified immunity claim.

Rojicek v. Community Consolidated School District 15

888 F. Supp. 878 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 10, 1995

F.Qualified Immunity In their motion, defendants argue that Counts I through IV should be dismissed as to the individual defendants based on qualified immunity. … “Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, public officials performing discretionary functions are protected against suits for damages unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of

Lowrey v. Texas a & M University System

11 F. Supp. 2d 895 · District Court, S.D. Texas · May 27, 1998

If the defendants raise a qualified-immunity defense in their answer, the court may in its discretion require that the plaintiffs file a reply addressing the defendants’ qualified-immunity claim. … violates clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Avalon Carriage Service Inc. v. City of St. Augustine

417 F. Supp. 2d 1279 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 23, 2006

As a result, Plaintiff argues Defendants Harass and Litzinger acted beyond the scope of their authority and have violated clearly established law and qualified immunity is not proper. ii. … The Court’s Analysis The defense of qualified immunity protects “government officials performing discretionary functions from suit in their individual capacities unless their conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory

Thomas v. Dillard

212 F. Supp. 3d 938 · District Court, S.D. California · Aug 10, 2016

42 U.S.C. § 1983 causes of action on the basis of qualified immunity. … No Qualified Immunity for Civil Code section 52.1. There is no qualified immunity defense available to a defendant for a Civil Code section 52.1 cause of action. See Venegas v.

Selman v. Harvard Medical School

494 F. Supp. 603 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 20, 1980

Clearly, any damage claim resulting from a lawsuit such as the instant one would not be paid through such revenue bonds but from public funds. … Roth, 408 U.S. 564 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972), it was clearly stated that to have a property interest, “a person must have more than an abstract need or desire. ...

Pierce v. Pemiscot Memorial Health Systems

25 F. Supp. 3d 1198 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Jun 13, 2014

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Defendants have not established that they are entitled to qualified immunity. 7.