Case law

Groves v. Cox

559 F. Supp. 772 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Mar 16, 1983

“This federal immunity defense clearly does not violate due process. … Sovereign immunity, established in England in 1788, Russell v. Men of Devon, 100 Eng.Rep. 359, and first recognized in America in 1812, Mower v.

Brown v. North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles

987 F. Supp. 451 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Nov 28, 1997

The Supreme Court has dramatically broadened the scope of the Eleventh Amendment’s reach, however, creating immunity even in cases clearly *454 outside the plain language of the Amendment. Since Hans v. … It is well-established that “an uneonsenting State is immune from suits brought in federal courts by her own citizens as well as by citizens of another State.” Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Auth. v.

DeRosa v. Rambosk

732 F. Supp. 2d 1285 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Aug 11, 2010

“Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities when acting within their discretionary authority if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Kathleen has also satisfied the second step of the qualified immunity inquiry, since at the time of the arrest it was “clearly established that an arrest made without probable cause violates the Fourth Amendment.”

Leach v. Clay

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 27, 2023

immunity and qualified privilege should not apply given the facts at hand. … immunity, as the essential facts entitling qualified immunity remain the same.

Gombert v. Lynch

541 F. Supp. 2d 492 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 27, 2008

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY “[GJovernment officials performing discretionary functions generally are granted a qualified immunity and are ‘shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … The next step is to ask whether this right was clearly established at the time.

DeBiaso v. Spitz

957 F. Supp. 2d 1213 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 2, 2013

Neither may they avail themselves of qualified immunity for such conduct because the “right to be free from judicial deception in securing [an order removing a child from the home] was clearly established” before the events … Although absolute and qualified immunity are not available to her, Defendant contends that Plaintiffs cannot establish that any representations she made to the Court at the shelter hearing were false.

Schuckman v. Babin

District Court, D. Kansas · Mar 1, 2024

The Court dismisses Vigil based on qualified immunity because Plaintiffs have not alleged a clearly established constitutional violation by him. … As explained above, a qualified-immunity defense requires the Court to consider whether the facts alleged plausibly allege a constitutional violation that was clearly established at the time.

Ballard v. Holinka

601 F. Supp. 2d 110 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 27, 2009

Qualified Immunity “[Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … An official protected by qualified immunity enjoys “immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability,” which is “effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial.” Mitchell v.

Feliciano v. DuBois

846 F. Supp. 1033 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 10, 1994

immunity. … Fenton, 891 F.2d 373 , 386 n. 10 (1st Cir.1989) (noting that rules of qualified immunity apply to the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act).

Sulehria v. City of New York

670 F. Supp. 2d 288 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 23, 2009

are protected by qualified immunity. … A public official is thus entitled to qualified immunity if (1) his or her conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known, or (2) it was objectively

Smith v. RECTOR & VISITORS OF UNIV. OF VIRGINIA

78 F. Supp. 2d 533 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Dec 22, 1999

Here, what plaintiffs are alleging involves a deprivation of an actual constitutional right that was clearly established at the time; thus, defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity for their actions surrounding the … While absolute immunity for President Casteen may not be the relevant standard, qualified immunity is.

Clavette v. Sweeney

132 F. Supp. 2d 864 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 30, 2001

The determination whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity involves a two-step analysis: “1) Was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established? … The law. regarding the use of excessive force was clearly established at the time of the events at issue. See id. at 1141 .

Long v. Nix

877 F. Supp. 1358 · District Court, S.D. Iowa · Jan 31, 1995

Qualifíed Immunity Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for money damages when performing discretionary functions if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Defendants did not violate any of Long’s clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable prison official would have known. They are entitled to qualified immunity on Long’s claims for money damages. III.

Guillory v. Bush

505 F. Supp. 2d 148 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 4, 2007

Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 , 109 S.Ct. 2304 , 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989); (4) the complaint fails to state a claim against officials sued in their personal capacities under § 1983 who are entitled to qualified immunity … because there are no allegations that the officials’ conduct “violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,” Harlow v.

Berman v. Turecki

885 F. Supp. 528 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 5, 1995

Qualified Immunity FBI officers enjoy a qualified immunity from damage suits arising out of their official conduct. See Anderson v. … Consequently, Chapman is immune from liability in a Bivens action on grounds of qualified immunity. 16 A defense of qualified immunity should be decided at the earliest possible stage in a litigation, and it is a defense

Berry v. City of Phillipsburg, Kan.

796 F. Supp. 1400 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jun 17, 1992

In addition, although probable cause to arrest may be lacking, qualified immunity in a § 1983 action is available to state actors whose conduct was objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law and all the factual … Moreover, because the law on this subject was clearly established at the time of plaintiff’s arrest, a reasonable officer could not have thought otherwise under plaintiff’s version of the facts.

290 Madison Corp. v. Capone

485 F. Supp. 1348 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 12, 1980

Qualified Immunity Nonjudicial government officials who perform functions of an adjudicatory nature enjoy qualified immunity to § 1983 suits for damages. See Wood v. … In the instant case defendants never formally pleaded qualified immunity.

Grooms v. Marshall

142 F. Supp. 2d 927 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 20, 2001

Qualified immunity extends to individuals performing discretionary functions unless their - actions violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id. … The Court is therefore not able to grant Defendants qualified immunity at this juncture.

Gratsch v. Hamilton County Sheriff's Department

91 F. Supp. 2d 1160 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 24, 2000

Qualified Immunity Under the doctrine of qualified immunity “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … The Court now evaluates whether Defendants should have qualified immunity on this claim.

Norris v. Detrick

918 F. Supp. 977 · District Court, N.D. West Virginia · Mar 1, 1996

In the alternative, it is believed that the -defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the excessive force claim. … Therefore, they are entitled to qualified immunity on the claim of excessive force set forth in Count One of the Complaint. The defendants also argue that they are entitled to summary judgment on Count Two.