Case law

Albers-Anders v. Pocan

905 F. Supp. 2d 944 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Sep 24, 2012

Qualified Immunity Defendant has moved for summary judgment on his qualified immunity defense. … Clearly Established Right Defendant argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because it is not clearly established that a legislator violates a job applicant’s First Amendment rights by choosing not to hire her on

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.

Sheaffer v. County of Chatham

337 F. Supp. 2d 709 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 17, 2004

. *722 An inquiry into qualified immunity involves a two-step analysis. … The second step in the qualified immunity analysis requires the court to determine whether the right alleged to have been violated was “clearly established.”

Tardiff v. Knox County

397 F. Supp. 2d 115 · District Court, D. Maine · Nov 2, 2005

Defendant Davey has raised the defense of qualified immunity. … Whether an official may prevail in a qualified immunity defense depends upon the “objective reasonableness of [his] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.” Harlow v.

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.

Monk v. Gulick

District Court, E.D. Virginia · Apr 6, 2021

Qualified Immunity The defendants argue that qualified immunity bars Monk’s § 1983, assault, and battery claims against Schilke and Curtis. … established law, it may be that the qualified immunity question cannot be resolved without discovery.”); P.A.

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

Inversora Murten, S.A. v. Energoprojekt Holding Co.

671 F. Supp. 2d 152 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 3, 2009

Similarly, in its notice of sovereign immunity, JICA stated that it is an “official agency of the Government of Japan, established by legislative enactment of the Japanese Diet.” … When a defendant qualifies for sovereign immunity, “the federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction” over proceedings against that defendant, and therefore “must dismiss the case” against the immune defendant.

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

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.

Coleman v. Wayne State University

664 F. Supp. 1082 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jul 7, 1987

This exception is inapplicable in the present case since the only named defendant is Wayne State University. *1085 Defendant Wayne State University is a state instrumentality, and therefore qualifies for state immunity under … Thus, Coleman failed to carry his burden of establishing a prima facie case with respect to this incident. Regarding the retaliation claim, the Court finds Coleman clearly established a prima facie case.

Bunch v. Barnett

376 F. Supp. 23 · District Court, D. South Dakota · May 7, 1974

Members of the City Council do not have such complete immunity, but only a qualified privilege. … Clearly Congress was aware of how to specify that the housing was to be provided free of charge.

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

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.

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”);

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.

ROYER v. ROBERTSON

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 2023

The first prong of the qualified immunity inquiry is therefore satisfied. Qualified immunity’s second prong asks whether the constitutional right that was violated was “clearly established.” … , be able to establish their entitlement to qualified immunity on a motion for summary judgment.”