Case law

Gilbert v. Federal Deposit Insurance

950 F. Supp. 1194 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 3, 1997

Gilbert’s claim is not tenable because the executed settlement agreement clearly does not provide for prejudgment interest. … Gilbert has failed to establish that she qualifies for relief under the Back Pay Act. 7 . It is plaintiff's burden to establish that she is a "prevailing party.” Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v.

Mazzeo v. Gibbons

649 F. Supp. 2d 1182 · District Court, D. Nevada · Jun 29, 2009

Qualified Immunity Defendants Young and Metro argue they are immune from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … right was clearly established.

Moore v. University of Kansas

118 F. Supp. 3d 1242 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jul 28, 2015

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability, ..., when ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … clearly established at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.”

Grant v. City of Syracuse

357 F. Supp. 3d 180 · District Court, N.D. New York · Feb 8, 2019

(c) Qualified Immunity . … Grant's clearly established rights, and therefore, they were not entitled to qualified immunity with regards to Mr. Grant's false arrest claims.

Hauge v. Brandywine School District

131 F. Supp. 2d 573 · District Court, D. Delaware · Feb 13, 2001

Qualified immunity The individual defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity from suit for any alleged violation of Hauge’s First Amendment rights. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from lia *584 bility for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Knight v. Davies

804 F. Supp. 182 · District Court, D. Kansas · Sep 17, 1992

in their individual capacities, the court finds these defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (government official immune from liability if conduct alleged in the complaint did not violate “clearly established, statutory or constitutional

Sonnino v. University of Kansas Hospital Authority

220 F.R.D. 633 · District Court, D. Kansas · Mar 31, 2004

These cases establish that the qualified immunity concept is a defense from suit as well as a defense from liability. … of qualified immunity before the Court.

Newkirk v. Sheers

834 F. Supp. 772 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 16, 1993

In applying the doctrine of qualified immunity to the facts of a given case, a court must grant immunity to a government official performing discretionary functions “insofar as [her] conduct does not violate clearly established … In some cases, the qualified immunity issue also has rested on “the complementary question of whether defendant had a clearly 'established duty towards plaintiff.” Ryan v.

Ryan v. City of Detroit

174 F. Supp. 3d 964 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 30, 2016

both a constitutional violation and that the violated right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct, the doctrine of qualified immunity shields Defendants from civil liability. … Based upon that conclusion, the Court grants Defendants’ motion based on qualified immunity, without addressing the “clearly established right” component. A.

Garza v. United States

881 F. Supp. 1099 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jan 19, 1995

The Court must evaluate the objective reasonableness of the Defendants’ actions assessed in the light of “clearly established” legal rules existing at the time. Johnston v. … Moreover, for purposes of the qualified immunity defense, the Court must consider the status of the law in March 1992, when this incident occurred.

Jones v. Harris

665 F. Supp. 2d 384 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 13, 2009

Defendants have also moved, in the alternative, for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ claims on the ground of qualified immunity. … It is no defense to a claim of qualified immunity that the defendant did not do what plaintiff said he did.

Ruble v. Escola

898 F. Supp. 2d 956 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 28, 2012

For the reasons that follow, the Court denies in part Defendant England’s motion for qualified immunity and state immunity. … The parties addressed qualified immunity issues in their briefings. ECF No. 38 at 11; 42 at 11; 44 at 17-18. .

Tretola v. County of Nassau

14 F. Supp. 3d 58 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 16, 2014

Transit Authority provides the following overview of qualified immunity: The doctrine of qualified or good faith immunity shields police officers from being subject to personal liability for damages. … reach the issue of qualified immunity.

Siegel v. Miller

446 F. Supp. 2d 346 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 18, 2006

Qualified immunity excuses government officials and employees from standing trial where their conduct “does not violate clearly established-statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … If a constitutional violation could be made out based on plaintiffs evidence, “the next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established.” Id.

Monge v. Cortes

413 F. Supp. 2d 42 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jan 23, 2006

Qualified Immunity. Finally, Defendants Aquino, Diaz, Cortés, and Marin argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. The Court disagrees. … Drawing on Supreme Court precedent, the Court employs a three-part test when determining if a public official is entitled to qualified immunity.

Danyus v. Slama DeRosa

District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jan 8, 2021

Wolf also claims she is entitled to qualified immunity because she had no personal involvement in the investigation. See Pearson v. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (“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

Rodriguez v. Rutter

498 F. Supp. 2d 932 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Jul 19, 2007

Because Plaintiff has not established that Defendants violated his First Amendment rights, he has failed to demonstrate that qualified immunity does not apply. … Because Plaintiff has not established that Defendants violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that qualified immunity does not apply.

Bahr v. County of Martin

771 F. Supp. 970 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Jul 16, 1991

Public officials have immunity against civil actions under federal common law unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … As a result, the record does not clearly establish the existence of probable cause. 4 .

Finkelstein v. Barthelemy

678 F. Supp. 1255 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Feb 8, 1988

The law is well established that “[qualified immunity protects ‘individuals acting within the bounds of their official duties, not the governing bodies on which they serve.’ ” 47 C. … Qualified Immunity The parties do not dispute what elements constitute this defense.

Hutchings v. ERIE CITY AND COUNTY, ETC.

516 F. Supp. 1265 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 29, 1981

Admittedly, in appropriate instances, certain defendants in civil rights actions can be shielded from liability for damages by asserting a qualified good faith immunity defense. See, Wood v. … Therefore, we conclude that this affidavit by itself, is not sufficient to establish a good faith immunity defense for all of the defendants in this action.