Case law

Acevedo-Orama v. Rodriguez-Rivera

389 F. Supp. 2d 238 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Sep 12, 2005

; and (4) defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity At the motion to dismiss stage, the threshold question in conducting a *246 qualified immunity inquiry is whether the allegations, taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, could support a conclusion

Doe Ex Rel. Doe v. Warren Consolidated Schools

307 F. Supp. 2d 860 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Feb 13, 2003

(i) Qualified Immunity Standard Government officials are afforded qualified immunity for their discretionary functions, as long as the conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … “If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no [need] for further inquirfy] concerning qualified immunity.” Saucier, 121 S.Ct. at 2156.

Soto v. Lord

693 F. Supp. 8 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 9, 1988

the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.” … rule was “clearly established” in March 1985.

Favors v. Cuomo

285 F.R.D. 187 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 10, 2012

Waiver Having established the qualified nature of the legislative privilege, the Court turns to a threshold issue raised by the parties: whether the legislative privilege has been waived. … And, as stated above, the fact that the legislators here have declined to assert legislative immunity weakens their claims of qualified privilege.

American Humanist Ass'n v. Baxter County

143 F. Supp. 3d 816 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Nov 12, 2015

“The doctrine of 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 … established to overcome qualified immunity.

Anderson v. Willis

917 F. Supp. 2d 1190 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jan 7, 2013

Qualified immunity protects public officials performing discretionary functions unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … A reasonable jury could find that defendant *1198 Willis violated clearly established law prohibiting the use of excessive force. See Smith v.

Petro v. Town of West Warwick ex rel. Moore

889 F. Supp. 2d 292 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Sep 7, 2012

Qualified immunity insulates defendant-officers 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 … clearly established’ at the time of the defendant’s alleged violation.”

South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, The v. Alexander

District Court, D. South Carolina · Feb 10, 2022

See, e.g., Gravel, 408 U.S. at 608 (declining to quash grand jury subpoena for Senator’s aide, relying on cases establishing legislative immunity from suit). … which is qualified.”); Benisek v.

Swartz v. Beach

229 F. Supp. 2d 1239 · District Court, D. Wyoming · Oct 7, 2002

Thus, in order to overcome the qualified immunity defense, the Plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to show: (1) the defendant’s conduct violated a constitutional right; and (2) that law was “clearly established” when the … This satisfies the Plaintiffs first requirement to overcome the qualified immunity defense. Whether the law with respect to the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment is “clearly established” is more difficult.

Carapellucci v. Town of Winchester

707 F. Supp. 611 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 3, 1989

Qualified Immunity Defendants have also moved for summary judgment on the ground that they are entitled to official immunity because it was not clearly established at the time their actions were taken that the actions violated … The Town of Winchester has also moved for summary judgment on this added ground, contending that it too is entitled to a qualified immunity.

Hiam v. HomeAway.com, Inc.

267 F. Supp. 3d 338 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 27, 2017

Despite these renunciations, Hiam believes HomeAway qualifies as a seller of travel services. … The first four words of the Basic Rental Guarantee establish what HomeAway, the “guarantor”, undertakes to do: reimburse qualifying users. Id. at 4 . The language of the Guarantee is clear and unambiguous.

Futura Development of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico

276 F. Supp. 2d 228 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jun 26, 2003

However, Defendants argue that, in their individual capacities, they are also protected by qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity “was created to shield government officials from civil liability for the performance of discretionary functions so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or

Selico v. Jackson

201 F. Supp. 475 · District Court, S.D. California · Jan 23, 1962

Clearly, the complaint in the case at bar alleges facts indicating the fulfillment of both of the above conditions. … DEFENDANT EVANS IS NOT IMMUNE FROM SUIT.

Goss v. Sullivan

839 F. Supp. 1532 · District Court, D. Wyoming · Dec 6, 1993

Finally, defendants argue *1535 they are entitled to immunity in their official capacities and to qualified immunity in their personal capacities. … Defendants further contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity for the claims asserted against them in their individual capacities. The Court agrees.

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.

Price v. Cochran

205 F. Supp. 2d 1241 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jun 6, 2002

Qualified immunity shields an individual government official performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as his or her conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The plaintiff must show that the defendant has violated clearly established law. Id. at 131 .

Zamora v. North Salem Central School District

414 F. Supp. 2d 418 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 9, 2006

A public official is entitled to qualified immunity for acts taken in his or her official capacity, unless those acts violated clearly established Constitutional rights of which an objectively reasonable official would have … Second, the right alleged must have been clearly established at the time of the violation. Finally, the official will receive immunity if his or her actions were objectively reasonable. See id. at 212.

Smith v. Maschner

915 F. Supp. 263 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jan 11, 1996

Supreme Court has indicated that when the issue whether constitutional rights allegedly violated were “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity under Harlow v. … Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiffs due process right to call Bohannon as a witness was not “clearly established” at the time of the 1984 disciplinary hearing.

Huffman v. Village of Newburgh Heights

120 F. Supp. 3d 691 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 27, 2015

A defendant may assert “the defense of qualified immunity, which shields government officials from ‘liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Patrolman Hoover is accordingly entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

Lester v. CITY OF ROSEDALE, MISS.

757 F. Supp. 741 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Feb 14, 1991

As for plaintiff’s fourth and fourteenth amendment claims, the court finds that Arbuckle is protected under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … See Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 ; Jacquez, 801 F.2d at 791 (qualified immunity shields an official from liability unless the official’s conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights