Case law

Associates in Obstetrics & Gynecology v. Upper Merion Township

270 F. Supp. 2d 633 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 16, 2003

Qualified immunity applies so long as the officials’ conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. 316 F.3d at 398. … (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Maddux v. District of Columbia

144 F. Supp. 3d 131 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 16, 2015

Saucier inquiry: whether the constitutional right violated was “clearly established.” … immunity.

Austin v. Brookline

2001 DNH 171 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Sep 21, 2001

In analyzing a qualified immunity defense, the court must first “‘determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right” and second “‘determine whether that right was clearly established … Therefore, Clark has not shown that she is entitled to qualified immunity under a related crimes theory.

Cinaglia v. Levin

258 F. Supp. 2d 390 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 11, 2003

An individual is immune if his or her conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id. at 399 . … Therefore, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for suits brought under § 1983. IV.

Brown v. O'Connor

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 27, 2024

They argue Plaintiff failed to state a claim for relief and that the Manning and Laing are entitled to qualified immunity and the City of Cincinnati to sovereign immunity. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982) (“[G]overnment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Paoli v. Lally

636 F. Supp. 1252 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 23, 1986

Qualified Immunity As an alternative basis for summary judgment, Goodlander contends that he is entitled to a qualified good faith immunity defense. See Harris v. … court granted judgment for defendants on the basis of a qualified immunity defense.

Gottlieb v. Wiles

143 F.R.D. 241 · District Court, D. Colorado · Feb 11, 1992

The December 9, 1991, Response specifically asserted both the attorney-client privilege and the qualified immunity given to work product (Ex. F, App. I, Wiles’ Motion). … The burden of establishing the elements necessary to qualify a document for work product protection is on the party resisting discovery. Hamel v. General Motors Corp., 128 F.R.D. 281 (D.Kan.1989).

Sereika v. Patel

411 F. Supp. 2d 397 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 25, 2006

that were clearly established at the time it was taken.” … Where a right is clearly established, a government official is entitled to qualified immunity if it was “objectively reasonable for him to believe that his actions were lawful at the time of the challenged act.”

Garcia v. Casey

District Court, N.D. Alabama · Feb 12, 2020

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from individual capacity suits unless the official violates “clearly established statutory … So, Defendants’ arguments that Plaintiffs failed to assert clearly established law for any of those claims have no bearing because Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity for violations of state law.

Ringuette v. City of Fall River

888 F. Supp. 258 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 12, 1995

Qualified Immunity The main contention of the individual defendants is that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … The format of inquiry must take is well-defined: Qualified immunity shields government official performing discretionary functions from civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Romano v. Department Family Services

District Court, D. Delaware · Feb 13, 2020

Moreover, even assuming the actions undertaken by the caseworkers are subject only to qualified immunity, they are immune from suit given that Plaintiffs have not Stated a plausible claim that Defendant caseworkers acted … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982) (government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Spencer v. District of Columbia

168 F. Supp. 3d 114 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 4, 2016

not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

NABELSI v. HOLMDEL TOWNSHIP

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 30, 2021

Pa. 1982) (“The law is clearly established that law enforcement officers who effect an arrest pursuant to a facially valid arrest warrant are immune from suit alleging a constitutional.”), and I DISMISS Count I … As such, even if Southwest did not hire Nabelsi because of the arrest record, it is far from certain whether that would qualify as “the kind of foreclosure of opportunities amounting to a deprivation of liberty.”

Moulton v. DeSue

966 F. Supp. 2d 1298 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Oct 16, 2012

Lastly, Plaintiff contends that the constitutional violation as alleged has been clearly established at the time of the incident in question; therefore, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. 1. … Because the law clearly established that conduct as alleged violated a pre-trial detainee’s Fourteenth Amendment right to medical care, Hendrix, DeSue, Mixon, and Holl *1311 ingsworth are not entitled to qualified immunity

Henrise v. Horvath

94 F. Supp. 2d 765 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Apr 21, 2000

The Individual Defendants have asserted the defense of qualified immunity and contend that Plaintiff has not pleaded his claim with the requisite specificity to defeat their entitlement to qualified immunity. … Defendants in essence seek an order requiring Plaintiff to file a reply to their assertion of qualified immunity.

Pippen v. Scales

822 F. Supp. 305 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · May 17, 1993

Additionally, defendant Tomlinson is entitled to qualified immunity as an agent of the Board. … State Bar of Texas, 791 F.2d 435, 438 (5th Cir.1986) (investigator for State Bar entitled to qualified immunity). 2.

Nam Dang v. Sheriff of Seminole County

38 F. Supp. 3d 1333 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Aug 6, 2014

In order to overcome immunity, Plaintiff must show that the Defendants violated a clearly established constitutional right. Townsend v. … Jefferson Cnty., 601 F.3d 1152, 1157-58 (11th Cir.2010) (to lose entitlement to qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show that a “(1) the defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) this right was clearly established

Lindsay v. Northern Virginia Mental Health Institute

736 F. Supp. 1392 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · May 10, 1990

Defendant Mardelli contends that pursuant to qualified immunity rules established by case law interpreting § 1983 actions as well as pursuant to Virginia sovereign immunity law, his actions are shielded from liability. … As to defendant Mardelli his actions in this case enjoy qualified immunity.

Max v. Paladino

656 F. Supp. 937 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 13, 1987

Second, a rule that government officials are immune from suit under § 1983 whenever they do not intend to violate a person’s civil rights would conflict with the doctrine of qualified immunity established in Harlow v. … ’ ” for which federal officials may only claim qualified immunity.

Greene v. Wright

389 F. Supp. 2d 416 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Sep 21, 2005

Qualified immunity protects from suit state employees whose “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Kerman v. … To determine whether qualified immunity is appropriate, a court must look to the specific factual circumstances underlying the alleged wrongdoing, and then “make the ultimate legal determination of whether qualified immunity