Case law

Hardy v. City of New York

732 F. Supp. 2d 112 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 12, 2010

State defendants present similar arguments to City defendants, and add arguments that: (1) defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because Hardy’s claims do not touch upon clearly established federal rights; (2) Hardy … “Government actors 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.’ ” Okin v.

Luder v. Endicott

86 F. Supp. 2d 854 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Feb 14, 2000

Ex parte Young Exception Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 , 28 S.Ct. 441 , 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908), established an additional exception to sovereign immunity that allows a court to order prospective injunctive relief to restrain … See Pennhurst, 465 U.S. at 98 , 104 S.Ct. 900 (principle of sovereign immunity is constitutional limitation of federal judicial power established in Art. III). C.

Holmes v. City of Wilmington

249 F. Supp. 3d 781 · District Court, D. Delaware · Apr 19, 2017

B. § 1983 Fourth Amendment Claim Defendants argued that the officer defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiffs § 1983 Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims. … immunity argument.

Aragón v. De Baca County Sheriff's Department

93 F. Supp. 3d 1283 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Mar 23, 2015

, and whether the right at issue was clearly established at *1288 the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.”) … immunity.

Whittaker v. Munoz

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 4, 2019

The doctrine of qualified immunity entitles officers to immunity from suit unless their conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … If the right in question was not clearly established, a court need not “broach the question of whether a constitutional violation occurred because the officers are entitled to qualified immunity regardless.”

Yanez v. City of New York

29 F. Supp. 2d 100 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 6, 1998

basis of qualified immunity. … Although a denial of immunity on a motion for summary judgment may be immediately appealable, pretrial resolution of the qualified immunity defense may be defeated by a factual dispute. Id.

Jarvis v. Roberts

489 F. Supp. 924 · District Court, W.D. Texas · May 15, 1980

In Butz , the Court held that judges have absolute immunity in the exercise of their judicial functions, that federal prosecutors also have absolute immunity, and that federal executive officials have a qualified immunity … Agent McConnell, as a federal executive officer, is entitled to a mixture of absolute and qualified immunity.

Rourke v. United States

744 F. Supp. 100 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 17, 1989

In these motions to dismiss the complaint, the remaining individual defendants contend that they are absolutely immune from personal liability for the state law torts asserted in Counts I thru V and enjoy qualified immunity … Clearly, the same conduct which this Court concludes is discretionary for purposes of establishing immunity from state law tort claims will likewise be discretionary for purposes of determin *103 ing whether the United States

Cuba-Diaz v. Town of Windham

274 F. Supp. 2d 221 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Aug 1, 2003

Qualified Immunity on § 1983 Claim 9 “Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Connecticut law also provides qualified immunity, but, only where probable cause exists. See Conn. Gen.Stat. § 52-557n(b)(5).

Jackson v. Wilkins

852 F. Supp. 2d 890 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Mar 28, 2012

Defendants, however, have raised the defense of qualified immunity. … The Supreme Court has held that “governmental officials performing discretionary functions are generally shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or

Shannon v. Koehler

673 F. Supp. 2d 758 · District Court, N.D. Iowa · Dec 4, 2009

The United States Supreme Court has explained the reasoning behind the concept of qualified immunity: “Qualified immunity balances two important interests- — the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise … before a court can determine it was clearly established.”

Seifert v. Rivera

933 F. Supp. 2d 307 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 19, 2013

Qualified immunity “protects government officials from liability where the officials’ conduct was not in violation of a ‘clearly established’ constitutional right.” Sudler v. … by qualified immunity.”

Connelly v. Comptroller of the Currency

673 F. Supp. 1419 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Sep 15, 1987

Defendants deny these allegations, and alternatively claim qualified and absolute immunity. IV. … While officers of a governmental agency who perform judicial or prosecutorial functions may have absolute immunity, all other officers have only qualified immunity. Butz v.

Stella v. Dept. Of Educ.

367 F. Supp. 3d 235 · District Court, D. Delaware · Mar 18, 2019

Qualified Immunity The Individual Defendants separately argue that, as governmental employees, they are entitled to qualified immunity from Stella's First Amendment claim. 176 Qualified immunity " 'shield[s] [government actors … inquiries in either order and "may grant qualified immunity on the ground that a purported right was not 'clearly established' by prior case law, without resolving the often more difficult question whether the purported

Horton v. Williams

572 F. Supp. 2d 1292 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Aug 27, 2008

“Once the defendant establishes that he was acting within his discretionary authority, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that qualified immunity is not appropriate.” Id. (citation omitted). … “Qualified immunity applies when there was arguable probable cause for an arrest even if actual probable cause did not exist.” Crosby v.

American Telecom Co. v. the Republic of Lebanon

408 F. Supp. 2d 409 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Sep 9, 2005

The TIP established the guidelines for all bid applicants. … facie case is established, the burden of production shifts to the non-movant to show that an exception applies, [citation omitted] Nevertheless, the party claiming FSIA immunity retains the ultimate burden of persuasion

Donnell G. Haddock v. Luna

District Court, C.D. California · May 9, 2024

Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1220 (9th Cir. 2007) (finding, for purposes of qualified immunity analysis in 5150 claim, the “constitutional right to be free from [mental health] detention without probable cause was clearly … established prior to 2002,” citing Maag).

Queen v. Prince George's County

188 F. Supp. 3d 535 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 26, 2016

As a result, he also could not establish that he was entitled to qualified immunity on the federal claim. See Streater, 565 Fed.Appx. at 210 . Consequently, summary judgment is not appropriate on' these claims. … To determine the availability of qualified immunity, I take the facts alleged “ ‘in the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury.’ ” Meyers v.

Williams ex rel. Williams v. Fulton County School District

181 F. Supp. 3d 1089 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Mar 31, 2016

“[P]ublic officials, sued in their individual capacities are entitled to qualified immunity when their actions do not violate ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.’” Tapley v. … “Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials acting within their discretionary authority are immune from suit unless the official’s conduct violates clearly established federal statutory or constitutional

Omega Homes, Inc. v. City of Buffalo, NY

4 F. Supp. 2d 187 · District Court, W.D. New York · Apr 30, 1998

A municipality will be immune from antitrust liability only if it acts as an instrumentality of the state, through which the state has clearly and affirmatively chosen to implement its policies. … Based on the foregoing, defendant City argues that it is a municipality which is immune from antitrust liability because it acted pursuant to a clearly articulated state policy to’ combat urban blight.