Case law

Summers v. Adams

669 F. Supp. 2d 637 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Dec 14, 2009

immunity because the underlying rights were not clearly established at the time of the posting. … The court, therefore, applies the qualified immunity analysis to these more limited actions, asking whether such actions violated a clearly established right.

Goetz v. CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, ILL.

699 F. Supp. 2d 1066 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Mar 26, 2010

In addition, the Court denied the Defendants’ request for qualified immunity. II. … Qualified Immunity Renfrow and Mayor Davlin have invoked qualified immunity, and the Court must determine whether they enjoy qualified immunity on the due process claims.

Newsome v. Webster

843 F. Supp. 1460 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · Mar 14, 1994

“Qualified immunity” protects public officials from individual liability for discretionary acts that do not violate “clearly established statutes or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … In analyzing an assertion of qualified immunity, “[a] necessary concomitant to the determination of whether the constitutional right asserted by a plaintiff is ‘clearly established’ at the time the defendant acted is the

Doe v. Kane Cnty.

308 F. Supp. 3d 960 · District Court, E.D. Illinois · Apr 11, 2018

"[O]fficers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was 'clearly established at the time.' " D.C. v. … When assessing the clearly established prong of qualified immunity "the inquiry is aimed at determining whether a reasonable person in the officer's position would have understood his actions to be against the law at the

Mitchell v. Yates

402 F. Supp. 2d 222 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 18, 2005

This issue is relevant to both municipal liability and qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects government officials from individual liability in § 1983 actions “ ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Pumpkin Air, Inc. v. City of Addison

608 F. Supp. 787 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Jan 28, 1985

Clearly Articulated State Policy Defendants argue that the Texas Municipal Airports Act, Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat. Ann. art. 46d-1 et seq. … Misrepresentations do not qualify for Noerr-Pennington protection. Woods Exploration and Producing Company v.

Kees v. Wallenstein

973 F. Supp. 1191 · District Court, W.D. Washington · May 14, 1997

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … it is not clearly established today.

Crews v. Petrosky

509 F. Supp. 1199 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 19, 1981

We therefore conclude that Metro Petrosky is imbued with a qualified immunity in an action for damages under Section 1983. … Qualified immunity does not, however, provide a basis for dismissing the action at this juncture. The defense of qualified immunity of state officials is a matter which must be raised at trial. Skehan y.

Crighton v. Schuylkill County

882 F. Supp. 411 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 6, 1995

seek dismissal on the grounds of qualified immunity for Warden Kurtz, and in a footnote, for the other individual defendants as well. … Because the Court is not satisfied that Defendants have shown that the “offending” conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional rights which a reasonable person would have known, at this time, the Court rejects

Noakes v. Department of Homeland Security

District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Oct 18, 2022

Rubin, 77 F.3d 777, 781 (5th Cir. 1995) (“[F]iling an administrative complaint is clearly protected activity”). … What does and does not constitute an adverse action in this context is clearly established, see id., and even a generous interpretation of “formal reprimand” does not encompass TSA’s decisions to simply stop investigating

Smith v. Shell Chemical Co.

333 F. Supp. 2d 579 · District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Aug 26, 2004

Qualified Immunity The United States Supreme Court has consistently held that “government officials are entitled to some form of immunity from suits for damages.” 23 Generally, these officials receive only a qualified immunity … , which protects them from liability for civil damages if their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” 24 Qualified immunity attempts

Toney v. State of Ala.

784 F. Supp. 1542 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Mar 4, 1992

Clearly, defendants have not consented to this court’s jurisdiction, and Toney does not argue that defendants have waived their Eleventh Amendment immunity. … In their answer, defendants Thigpen and Na-gle assert qualified immunity. Defendants do not pursue this defense in their motion for summary judgment. 2 .

Hawkins v. Steward

653 F. Supp. 868 · District Court, D. Colorado · Feb 17, 1987

In the alternative, defendant *869 argues he is entitled to qualified immunity because he was performing discretionary actions which did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights which a reasonable … Although he argues against absolute immunity, plaintiff agrees defendant is entitled to assert the defense of qualified immunity.

Whitley v. Miller

57 F. Supp. 3d 152 · District Court, N.D. New York · Nov 6, 2014

Qualified Immunity Defendants concede Whitley’s “right to due process at a prison disciplinary hearing is well-established,” but contend Hearing Officer Miller “acted reasonably” in determining plaintiffs guilt. Defs.’ … does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Woodard v.

Robinson v. Pilgram

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 17, 2021

Even for pro se litigants, courts in this Circuit find failure to adequately allege whether the right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged injury dispositive in the qualified immunity analysis. … Sept. 17, 2021) (finding a pro se litigants’ claims barred by qualified immunity where they “fail[ed] to identify any clearly established 36 constitutional right”);

Andrade v. Chojnacki

65 F. Supp. 2d 431 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Jul 1, 1999

A public official is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct violates no clearly established statutory or constitutional law. Evans v. Ball, 168 F.3d 856 (5th Cir.1999); Sorenson v. … Accordingly, even if Plaintiffs have stated a claim under the First Amendment, the Defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity because the right was not clearly established at the time of the commission of the alleged

Boyle v. Barnstable Police Department

818 F. Supp. 2d 284 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 22, 2011

Qualified immunity protects police officers such as Caido and Morse “ ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Determining entitlement to qualified immunity entails determining: “(1) whether the facts alleged or shown by the Plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) if so, whether the right was clearly established

Perkins v. Cross

562 F. Supp. 85 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Apr 29, 1983

It fails to raise the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, which protects police officers who make an arrest in good faith and for probable cause. … The law is clear that the qualified immunity defense must be affirmatively pled, which was not done in this case. Gomez v.

Del. Dept. of H. & Ss v. US Dept. of Educ.

592 F. Supp. 1038 · District Court, D. Delaware · Aug 14, 1984

Albanese appealed this decision through the grievance procedures established by D.V.I. regulations on the ground that he was the "most senior qualified applicant," and, therefore, entitled to the position under D.V.I. regulations … The panel also found the doctrine of sovereign immunity to be inapplicable to Randolph-Sheppard Act arbitration proceedings since such proceedings do not involve the established judicial system.

Parisie v. Morris

873 F. Supp. 1560 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Jan 18, 1995

of clearly established law. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would