Case law

McCormick v. City of Lawrence

271 F. Supp. 2d 1292 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jul 11, 2003

Qualified Immunity Defendants next argue that qualified immunity protects them from Plaintiffs’ suit. … Qualified immunity shields an individual government official performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as his or her conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Parker v. Henderson County, Tennessee

450 F. Supp. 2d 842 · District Court, W.D. Tennessee · Aug 29, 2006

Based on the Plaintiffs failure to establish municipal liability, summary judgment is GRANTED as to the City. 4. Qualified Immunity. … “[G]overnment 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 established statutory

Fairbanks v. O'Hagan

378 F. Supp. 3d 72 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 10, 2019

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability unless 1) the plaintiff's allegations establish a violation of a protected right, 2) that right was clearly established at the time of the defendant's alleged … and thus defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Cephus v. Texas Health & Human Services Commission

146 F. Supp. 3d 818 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Nov 19, 2015

It clearly and unambiguously waives governmental immunity for governmental entities that are “employers,” defined in § 21.002(8) as including “a county, municipality, state agency, or state instrumentality, regardless of … For example, a plaintiff could show that she is clearly better qualified than the person who got the job, promotion, raise, etc., 6 or demonstrate that the employer’s articulated reason is false by showing inconsistency in

Pietri v. N.Y.S. Office of Court Administration

936 F. Supp. 2d 120 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 28, 2013

Imperatrice and Pfau argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Generally, public officials are entitled to qualified immunity if (1) "their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,” or (2) "it was objectively reasonable

Williams v. Thomas

511 F. Supp. 535 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Apr 3, 1981

The qualified immunity standard for public officials upon which Bolt relies was enunciated by the Supreme Court in Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308 , 95 S.Ct. 992 , 43 L.Ed.2d 214 (1975). … Stickland, 420 U.S. 308 , 95 S.Ct. 992 , 43 L.Ed.2d 214 (1975)] is the existence, at the time of the official’s action, of clearly established judicial decisions that make his action unconstitutional.”

Brammer-Hoelter v. Twin Peaks Charter Academy

81 F. Supp. 2d 1090 · District Court, D. Colorado · Jan 25, 2000

Defendants argue Marlatt and Cox are entitled to qualified immunity on this procedural due process claim because the conduct complained of does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the right in question was clearly established at the time of defendant’s conduct. Pueblo Neighborhood Health Centers, Inc. v.

Malay v. City of Syracuse

638 F. Supp. 2d 303 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 14, 2009

The government official, for his part, may assert the personal immunity defense of qualified immunity. See id. … Regarding Defendants’ argument that Miguel and Does 1 through 10 are entitled to qualified immunity, “the Second Circuit has declared that while ‘[a] qualified immunity defense can be presented in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion .

Fialkowski v. Shapp

405 F. Supp. 946 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 17, 1975

The Court then expanded this “qualified good faith immunity doctrine” in Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308 , 95 S. Ct. 992 , 43 L.Ed.2d 214 (1975). … A compensatory award will be appropriate only if the school board member has acted with such an impermissible motivation or with such disregard of the student’s clearly established constitutional rights that his action cannot

Thomas v. Barze

57 F. Supp. 3d 1040 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Sep 30, 2014

The Eighth Circuit has provided some guidance on how to analyze qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage, where the facts may not be established or are disputed: Because qualified immunity is an immunity from suit … the goal of qualified immunity.

Littlejohn v. Moody

381 F. Supp. 2d 507 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Aug 10, 2005

Qualified Immunity Analysis A. … Unless the right was clear, the officer is entitled to qualified immunity. Id.

Robertson v. Alabama Department of Economic & Community Affairs

902 F. Supp. 1473 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jul 31, 1995

Therefore the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity is granted. C. … Again, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment is predicated on the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Matthews v. Selsky

870 F. Supp. 66 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 12, 1994

established since Wolff v. … Because the Court holds that the defendants are immune under the doctrine of qualified immunity, it is not necessary to examine defendants' claims that Sandmann and Selsky are also entitled to absolute immunity.

Stalland v. South Dakota Board of Bar Examiners

530 F. Supp. 155 · District Court, D. South Dakota · Jan 15, 1982

Thus, the privileges and immunities clause “establishes a norm of comity (cites omitted) that is to prevail among the States with respect to their treatment of each other’s residents.” Hicklin v. … The privileges and immunities clause clearly extends unique protection to nonresidents who wish to engage in their chosen occupation and earn a livelihood within the state on an equal basis with residents. Since 5.

Lopez Lopez v. Garriga

718 F. Supp. 1066 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 21, 1989

The issue of qualified immunity was not presented to the jury. … The jury’s determination on the merits of the case mooted the issue of qualified immunity.

Shabazz v. Kailer

201 F. Supp. 3d 386 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 12, 2016

The Court cannot decide at the pleading stage that qualified immunity applies. … “As a general rule, police officers are entitled to qualified immunity if (1) their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights, or (2) it was objectively reasonable for them to believe their acts did

Wallace v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 22, 2010

The officers’ stronger argument is that they are entitled to qualified immunity. The officers’ qualified immunity defense is evaluated under the two-step analysis set forth in Saucier v. … “If the facts alleged do establish that a constitutional right was violated,” the Court “go[es] on to ask whether that right was ‘clearly established.’” Id.

Miller v. Garrett

695 F. Supp. 740 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 26, 1988

Moreover, even if Parole Officer Blum is entitled to only qualified immunity, cf. Ray v. Pickett, 734 F.2d 370, 372 (8th Cir.1984), plaintiffs claims against Blum must still be dismissed. … A state official is entitled to qualified immunity for conduct which did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which an official could reasonably be expected to know. See Harlow v.

Pedrina v. Han Kuk Chun

906 F. Supp. 1377 · District Court, D. Hawaii · Jun 27, 1995

In order to avoid a claim of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must prove that the law clearly established that the official’s actions were unlawful at the time of the alleged misconduct. Romero v. … Moreover, because the granting of favors in exchange for bribes is not “objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law,” Defendant Fasi is not entitled to qualified immunity for these alleged actions. IV.

Scott v. City of Dallas

876 F. Supp. 852 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Feb 20, 1995

Qualified Immunity The individual Defendants have qualified immunity from liability for money damages if their conduct did not violate clearly-established law of which a reasonable official would have been aware. … Plaintiffs have submitted' only conelusory allegations in support of these claims, and have not plead any facts sufficient to defeat qualified immunity concerning them.