Case law

Weinerman v. City of Philadelphia

785 F. Supp. 1174 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 16, 1992

These statutory provisions establish worker’s compensation liability, and thus immunity from a worker’s personal injury suit, for the specified contractors or employers unless the primarily liable subcontractor, or hiring … Section 3.1.1 of the contract clearly establishes that A & J was the contractor under the terms of the agreement which was in effect when Wein-erman was injured. 3 .

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.

Smith v. Salter

District Court, S.D. Alabama · Feb 8, 2018

However, having found herein that Plaintiff's allegations do not establish a constitutional violation, "there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity." Saucier v. … Lauderdale, 7 F.3d 1552, 1559 (11th Cir. 1993) (pushing handcuffed individual against a wall, although unnecessary, was not plainly unlawful, and officer entitled to qualified immunity because "it was not clearly established

East Coast Novelty Co., Inc. v. City of New York

781 F. Supp. 999 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 2, 1992

Qualified Immunity “ ‘[Wjhether an official protected by qualified immunity may be held personally liable for an allegedly unlawful official action generally turns on the “objective legal reasonableness” of the action assessed … in light of the legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time it was taken.’ ” Washington Square Post No. 1212 v.

Cofield v. Randolph County Commission

874 F. Supp. 1276 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Dec 30, 1994

The United States Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has established the following test when determining whether a government official is entitled to qualified immunity: 1. … Moreover, Plaintiffs do not allege that Hancock’s *1281 specific actions violated clearly established constitutional law.

Lockhart-Bembery v. Town of Wayland Police Department

404 F. Supp. 2d 373 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 7, 2005

Defendants offered eight affirmative defenses ranging from failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted to qualified immunity. The case was removed by the defendants to this Court on March 24, 2004. … Qualified Immunity In § 1983 actions, the defense of qualified immunity shields a government official performing discretionary functions from civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Wilson v. Tillman

613 F. Supp. 2d 1254 · District Court, S.D. Alabama · May 7, 2009

“Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from' civil trials ... and from liability if their conduct violates no clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … In considering the merits of a qualified immunity defense in excessive force cases, courts previously considered whether the right was clearly established and, if so, whether, in light of such clearly established law, a reasonable

Lewis v. Mollette

752 F. Supp. 2d 233 · District Court, N.D. New York · Nov 24, 2010

any clearly established right. … Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Hoover v. Radabaugh

123 F. Supp. 2d 412 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 27, 2000

Qualified Immunity The Defendants next argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … to qualified immunity.

Frobel v. County of Broome

419 F. Supp. 2d 212 · District Court, N.D. New York · Sep 30, 2005

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that defendant Bill is entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiffs excessive force claim. … Qualified immunity shields governmental officials “from liability for civil damages if their actions were objectively reasonable, as evaluated in the context of legal rules that were clearly established at the time.”

Stewart v. Pecsi

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 30, 2022

Qualified Immunity 21 Defendants argue Sergeant Pecsi and Deputy Johannes are entitled to qualified immunity 22 because they did not violate clearly established law. … (ECF No. 33 at 12–13.) 24 Qualified immunity “protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar 25 as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Taylor v. Brentwood Union Free School District

908 F. Supp. 1165 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 2, 1995

Townley and Caramore move to dismiss the cause of action against them on the basis of absolute immunity, qualified immunity, collateral es-toppel and failure allege sufficient facts to state a claim. … Coughlin, 50 F.3d 114, 116 (2d Cir.1995) (distinguishing absolute immunity from qualified immunity which protects government officials from civil suit if the official did not violate a clearly established right that a reasonable

Doe Ex Rel. Doe v. Detroit Board of Education

310 F. Supp. 2d 871 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 24, 2004

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY In the alternative, Defendant King claims that she is entitled to qualified immunity. The Court agrees. … The Sixth Circuit has held that “[a] government official performing a discretionary function is entitled to qualified immunity from suit for civil damages unless his actions violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Pietrangelo v. Alvas Corp.

664 F. Supp. 2d 420 · District Court, D. Vermont · Oct 7, 2009

Qualified Immunity The defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity for their actions. … a particular right was “clearly established.”

Manza v. Newhard

915 F. Supp. 2d 638 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 15, 2013

Qualified immunity shields government officials whose conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … A qualified immunity defense is established if “(a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that his action did not violate such law

Caristo v. Blairsville-Saltsburg Sch. Dist.

370 F. Supp. 3d 554 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 28, 2019

Plaintiff takes this language too literally, as two sentences earlier the Court stated the standard: "[t]he defense of qualified immunity can support the grant of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion only when the complaint itself establishes … the circumstances required for a finding of qualified immunity."

Collins v. Scott

961 F. Supp. 1009 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Apr 18, 1997

The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established rights which a reasonable person … The Defendants are entitled to have the claims against them dismissed because of qualified immunity.

Messina v. Mazzeo

854 F. Supp. 116 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 24, 1994

Qualified immunity grants an official an entitlement not to stand trial or face the other burdens of litigation so long as the official did not violate clearly established federal law. Mitchell v. … to qualified immunity.”).

Nero v. Baltimore County, MD

512 F. Supp. 2d 407 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 27, 2007

immunity. … matter of law that they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Hansel v. Sheridan

991 F. Supp. 69 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jan 20, 1998

The doctrine of. qualified immunity shields government employees acting in their official capae- *75 ity from suits for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , unless their conduct violated clearly established rights of which an … The parties do not dispute that the right to be free from malicious prosecution was clearly established at the time of the incident.