Case law

NEW JERSEY CHINESE COMMUNITY CENTER, INC v. MCALEER

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 15, 2022

For efficiency, a court may elect to consider the ‘clearly established’ prong first because, if that prong is not satisfied, then qualified immunity applies.” Muth v. Woodring, 666 F. … purposes of qualified immunity.”)

Pitt v. District of Columbia

404 F. Supp. 2d 351 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 23, 2005

Pitt the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … for reasonable good faith belief at common law and for qualified immunity make a difference.

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.

Jones v. Lacey

108 F. Supp. 3d 573 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jun 5, 2015

In order to defeat a qualified-immunity defense, a plaintiff must establish (1) that the defendant violated a constitutional right; and (2) that the right was “clearly established” at the time. Leary v. … Lacey also argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity on the ADA claim. (Def.’s Br. at 13.) But it appears that Lacey bases his qualified immunity defense on the first prong of the test.

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

Watrous v. Town of Preston

902 F. Supp. 2d 243 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Sep 29, 2012

Watrous’ property right was clearly established, they are entitled to qualified immunity because it was objectively reasonable for them to believe that their actions did not violate that right. See Doninger v. … “A finding of arbitrariness not only establishes a due process violation but precludes a defense of qualified immunity.” TLC Development, Inc. v.

Vandergrift v. United States

500 F. Supp. 237 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Nov 28, 1979

The following facts are established by the answers to interrogatories and the evidence in the case. 1. Langley Research Center was established in 1917 as a part of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics. … Hence, it does not, under the facts of this case, qualify for tort immunity under the provisions of the Act.

Nebraska Department of Roads Employees Ass'n v. Department of Roads

364 F. Supp. 251 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Aug 8, 1973

The weight of authority is that there was such immunity 6 7 , but there is no unanimity as to the nature of the immunity. … There is also a body of case law holding that an administrative officer has a qualified immunity from tort liability such that he is immune absent proof that he acted *257 with malice. Sailling v.

Campbell v. University of Louisville

862 F. Supp. 2d 578 · District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Mar 2, 2012

Finally, when Billingsley moved, along with U of L and the Board of Trustees, for summary judgment, he raised no claim that he was entitled to qualified immunity, which is yet further indication that he was not adequately … established constitutional rights.

Connecticut Performing Arts Foundation, Inc. v. Brown

47 B.R. 911 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Jan 7, 1985

Furthermore, Connecticut’s “anti-scalping” statute, Conn.Gen.Stat. § 53-289, establishes a policy in favor of fixed ticket prices. … Finally, the Connecticut Supreme Court has clearly stated that "the law of the case” is not res adjudicata so as to prevent the making of correct decisions later in a case. Barnes v.

O'Malley v. New York City Transit Authority

829 F. Supp. 50 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 11, 1993

Winston argues that she is protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity for executing Friedus’ order to discharge O’Malley. Winston is not immune from suit merely because she followed Friedus’ orders. Raysor v. … Nor is she entitled to qualified immunity through the erroneous assertion that the applicable law concerning a public employee’s First Amendment rights was not clearly established at the time of O’Malley’s discharge.

Gant v. County of Los Angeles

765 F. Supp. 2d 1238 · District Court, C.D. California · Apr 26, 2011

An official is entitled to qualified immunity where his or her “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … But rights are not clearly established for qualified immunity purposes at this level of generality. Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 639 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987).

Levine v. McCabe

357 F. Supp. 2d 608 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 23, 2005

The key question is whether the New York system for selecting qualified individuals is rationally related to the legitimate objective of having such qualified individuals serve. … However, his claims and supporting submissions clearly sound in the latter, and will be analyzed as such.

Baker v. City of Detroit

458 F. Supp. 379 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jul 31, 1978

Yet it is clear that in a § 1983 action for money damages, public officials have qualified immunity if they acted in good faith. Procunier v. … Nor can the city officials be said to have infringed a “clearly established” constitutional right, the existence of the right plaintiffs allege is the crux of this litigation!

Naia v. Deal

13 F. Supp. 2d 1369 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · Jun 30, 1998

Plaintiff, however, contends that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because their actions violated clearly established law. (Pl.’s Opp’n Summ. J. at 25). … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields governmental officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability if their conduct violates no clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Holloman v. Clarke

236 F. Supp. 3d 493 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 23, 2017

Prosecutorial Immunity Prosecutors are afforded two kinds of immunity in suits brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1983 : absolute and qualified. Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, 118 , 118 S.Ct. 502 , 139 L.Ed.2d 471 (1997). … The burden is on the defendant to establish which, if either, immunity applies. Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 269 , 113 S.Ct. 2606 , 125 L.Ed.2d 209 (1993).

Barnes v. Smith

654 F. Supp. 1244 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Mar 5, 1987

In the performance of ministerial, nonjudicial duties, a clerk is entitled to qualified, good faith immunity. McLallen v. Henderson, 492 F.2d 1298, 1299 (8th Cir.1974); Kane v. … Under this immunity, clerks are "shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."

Jones-Huff v. Hill

208 F. Supp. 3d 912 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 21, 2016

“Determination of whether qualified immunity applies depends on whether the violation of a constitutional right occurred and whether the unconstitutionality of an officer’s conduct was clearly established in the law at the … A grant of summary judgment for reasons of qualified immunity would not be appropriate. II.

Williams v. Goldsmith

905 F. Supp. 996 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Nov 28, 1995

Execution of process is clearly an “on duty” or official activity. … Sovereign immunity includes a qualified immunity available to state officers acting within the general scope of their authority who perform discretionary functions. Phillips, 555 So.2d at 85 .

Williams v. Blaisdell

173 F. Supp. 2d 574 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Apr 6, 2001

§ 1983 6 unless it is shown by specific allegations that the official violated clearly established constitutional law. … In analyzing whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, the court undertakes a two-stage analysis. Id.