Case law

Montgomery v. Mississippi

498 F. Supp. 2d 892 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Jul 6, 2007

Qualified Immunity The defendants advance the affirmative defense of qualified immunity as a ground for dismissal of the plaintiffs claims. … Given the current posture of this case, qualified immunity is not available to the defendants. Upon filing their responsive memorandum of law, the defendants may re-urge their claim of qualified immunity. B.

LaGrange v. Ryan

142 F. Supp. 2d 287 · District Court, N.D. New York · May 16, 2001

Qualified Immunity Officer Ryan seeks qualified immunity with respect to plaintiffs claims of false arrestyunlawful imprisonment, excessive force, and unlawful search and seizure. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields police officers acting in their official capacity from suits for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , unless their actions violate clearly-established rights of which an objectively

Mitchell v. Rappahannock Regional Jail Authority

703 F. Supp. 2d 549 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Mar 16, 2010

Second, Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity The Defendants all assert the defense of “qualified immunity.” Qualified *562 immunity is “an entitlement not to stand trial or face other burdens of litigation.” Mitchell v.

Estate of Tyler ex rel. Floyd v. Grossman

108 F. Supp. 3d 279 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 11, 2015

“In light of the Supreme Court’s ‘quite sparing’ recognition of absolute immunity,” the Third Circuit “begin[s] with the presumption that qualified rather than absolute immunity is appropriate.” … Otherwise, the immunity is qualified, which “shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged

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.

Brominski v. County of Luzerne

289 F. Supp. 2d 591 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 4, 2003

Absolute legislative immunity and qualified immunity are separate and distinct defenses to claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . … More specifically, qualified immunity focuses on whether officials’ actions were in violation of clearly established law, Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982).

Frederick L. v. Department of Public Welfare

157 F. Supp. 2d 509 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 23, 2001

As such, the Third Circuit determined in Christy that Eleventh Amendment immunity should be analyzed as an affirmative defense to be established by the party raising it. See id. … Thus, while the States are generally immune from suit brought by private individuals, there are three well-established exceptions to the bar. First, the States may consent to suit, waiving their immunity.

Cornel v. State of Hawaii

District Court, D. Hawaii · Nov 17, 2020

immunity as to the federal claims. … Callahan, 553 U.S. 223, 232, 236 (2009) (reiterating that a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if there was no constitutional violation or if the relevant law was not clearly established, and clarifying that a

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.

Biby v. Board of Regents of University of Neb. at Lincoln

338 F. Supp. 2d 1063 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Sep 29, 2004

Qualified Immunity Under Section 1983. … The Eighth Circuit has held that “when Pickering’s fact-intensive balancing test is at issue, the asserted First Amendment right ‘can hardly be considered “clearly established” for purposes of the [ ] qualified immunity standard

Rider v. Louw

957 F. Supp. 983 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 13, 1997

Qualified Immunity Louw argues that even if Rider alleged sufficient facts to show a § 1983 violation, Louw is shielded by the doctrine of qualified governmental immunity. … Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Justus v. County of Buchanan

517 F. Supp. 2d 810 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Oct 10, 2007

Ill The defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity from the plaintiffs § 1983 claims. … If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.

Welch v. THEODORIDES-BUSTLE

753 F. Supp. 2d 1223 · District Court, N.D. Florida · Nov 17, 2010

Moreover, under both the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act and § 1983, a defendant who is a public employee may invoke the defense of qualified immunity. … Compliance with state law sometimes affects the qualified-immunity analysis, but qualified immunity is a defense only to a damages claim, not to a claim for injunctive or declaratory relief.

Botway v. Carlson

474 F. Supp. 836 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Jul 30, 1979

In applying Procunier immunity test defendants can be held liable for damages where “the constitutional right allegedly infringed by them was clearly established at the time of their challenged conduct if they knew or should … Therefore a motion to dismiss based on the defense of qualified immunity cannot be ruled upon at this time.

Jenkins v. Tyler

167 F. Supp. 2d 652 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 18, 2001

Even were there substantial grounds to sustain Jenkins’s claims of a First Amendment violation here, Tyler would nevertheless be immune from liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … In accordance with this doctrine, government officials are shielded from liability flowing from their performance of discre *656 tionary functions as long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or

Molina v. City of Lancaster

159 F. Supp. 2d 813 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 2001

When evaluating a claim of qualified immunity, the Court must determine if a constitutional violation has occurred, and then determine whether it was clearly established at the time of the violation. See Wilson v. … New Jersey State Police, 71 F.3d 480, 484 (3d Cir.1995) (stating clearly established right to be free from arrest without probable cause). Therefore, the police officers in this case do not have qualified immunity.

Cuno v. DaimlerChrysler, Inc.

154 F. Supp. 2d 1196 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 1, 2001

In Count III, Plaintiffs allege that even if Ohio Rev.Code §§ 5709.62(C)(1) & 5709.631 are constitutional, DaimlerChrysler was not qualified for the property tax exemption. … Clearly, the property tax exemption at issue is not a tariff, since it applies only to property owned in the State of Ohio.

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.

Sundbye v. Ogunleye

3 F. Supp. 2d 254 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 3, 1998

Qualified Immunity The standard applicable to claims of qualified immunity is well-settled. … not violate clearly established federally protected rights.”