Case law

Bearden v. Oklahoma ex rel. Board of Regents

234 F. Supp. 3d 1148 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Feb 10, 2017

In support of its position that plaintiff has failed to plead facts sufficient to establish a violation of the Rehab Act or Title II of the ADA, the University cites McGuinness v. … Because “[disability discrimination has clearly been identified in the context of public education,” Bowers v.

Z Street v. Shulman

District Court, District of Columbia · May 27, 2014

Rather, the circuit has 16 clearly established that whether or not the AIA and DJA prohibit a suit against the IRS depends on whether the action is fundamentally a “tax collection … Under the firmly-established doctrine of sovereign immunity, the United States is immune to suit unless Congress has expressly waived the immunity defense. See, e.g., United States v.

Gonzalez v. Ahmed

67 F. Supp. 3d 1145 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 9, 2014

A Court considering a claim of qualified immunity must determine: (1) whether the Plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right, and (2) whether such right was clearly established such that it would … Chudy on qualified immunity grounds. See Knox v. Sw.

Grider v. City of Auburn

628 F. Supp. 2d 1322 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jun 18, 2009

October 2006 Citation Officers who demonstrate that they acted within their discretionary authority are entitled to qualified immunity unless their actions violated clearly established *1332 constitutional rights. … Finally, Meeks argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate any clearly established constitutional right by “calculating occupancy codes more stringently than other similarly situated businesses

ARRINGTON EX REL. ARRINGTON v. City of Davenport

240 F. Supp. 2d 984 · District Court, S.D. Iowa · Jan 6, 2003

Qualified Immunity Behning raises the defense of qualified immunity. The Eighth Circuit has just recently again summarized the qualified immunity analysis: ... … A state actor is entitled to qualified immunity when his “ ‘conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” [Sexton v.

Hines v. Town of Vonore

912 F. Supp. 2d 628 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Dec 5, 2012

(citation omitted), and if a plaintiff fails to establish any one element, the defendant’s request for qualified immunity must be granted. Radvansky v. … did indeed violate clearly established rights.

Bluitt v. Houston Independent School District

236 F. Supp. 2d 703 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Oct 14, 2002

A defendant “is entitled to qualified immunity unless he violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of his conduct.” Blackwell v. … In considering a claim of qualified immunity, the court must make a two-step inquiry: First, the court must determine whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Guzman v. Garcia

901 F. Supp. 45 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Sep 14, 1995

Defendants further assert that they are entitled to the protections of qualified immunity because their actions did not violate any of plaintiffs’ clearly established constitutional rights. … Thus, they contend, they are entitled to the protections of qualified immunity under Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Panozzo v. Rhoads

711 F. Supp. 941 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 10, 1989

Nonetheless, regardless of whether such conduct constitutes a due process violation, qualified immunity shields defendants from liability. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions are immune “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Buchanan v. Williams

434 F. Supp. 2d 521 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Jun 6, 2006

For qualified immunity purposes, the right at issue must be clearly established at the time of the violation, but “it need not be the ease that the very action in question has been previously held unlawful, in light of the … As to the Fourth Amendment right, the Court concludes that Soldal and Thomas establish Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment right not to have her property taken without lawful process, as clearly established rights.

Ott v. City of Milwaukee

48 F. Supp. 3d 1197 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Sep 19, 2014

Due Process Violation Qualified immunity “protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Spang v. Katonah-Lewisboro Union Free School District

626 F. Supp. 2d 389 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 18, 2009

Qualified Immunity In the alternative, Lichtenfeld argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity on the retaliation charge. … Government defendants sued in their individual capacity are shielded by qualified immunity as long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Motoyama v. Hawaii, Department of Transportation

864 F. Supp. 2d 965 · District Court, D. Hawaii · Mar 29, 2012

The Ninth Circuit has stated that “being placed on administrative leave might qualify as an adverse employment action and we have suggested an investigation of an employee might so qualify.” Lakeside-Scott v. … The Court will assume for sake of argument that Plaintiffs placement on administrative leave qualifies as a materially adverse employment action because she nonetheless cannot establish the causation element. *982 D.

Michigan Head Start Directors Association v. Butz

397 F. Supp. 1124 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · May 30, 1975

Where judicial review is not clearly precluded by Congress, the problem is slightly different. … This case thus falls squarely within the established “scope of authority” exception to the sovereign immunity bar. Dugan, supra.

Singleton v. Kentucky

176 F. Supp. 3d 704 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Mar 31, 2016

Federal qualified immunity “protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … of qualified immunity.”

Mallak v. Aitkin County

9 F. Supp. 3d 1046 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Mar 31, 2014

It may well be that, as this case proceeds, Defendants will be able to establish that they are entitled to qualified immunity because their actions were not “clearly established” violations of the law. … The court held that the answers to those questions were not clearly established and that qualified immunity applied as a result. Id.

Marshall v. Town of Merrillville

228 F. Supp. 3d 853 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 11, 2017

their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Zervas v. District of Columbia

817 F. Supp. 148 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 17, 1993

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages incurred in the performance of a discretionary function “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Therefore, qualified immunity is not a bar to plaintiffs claim of intentional racial discrimination in employment. The Court denies defendant’s motion as to the defense of qualified immunity. 6.

McRae v. Stewart

District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 2, 2020

While Plaintiff disputes whether these defendants are entitled to the absolute immunity they assert in defense of his lawsuit, that “dispute” is inconsequential. … Specifically, when a complaint filed by a prisoner is dismissed in its entirety it qualifies as a “strike” under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Blakely v.

Bluitt v. Houston Independent School Dist.

236 F. Supp. 2d 703 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Oct 14, 2002

A defendant "is entitled to qualified immunity unless he violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of his conduct." Blackwell v. … In considering a claim of qualified immunity, the court must make a two-step inquiry: First, the court must determine whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.