Case law

J.R. Ex Rel. R. v. Waterbury Board of Education

272 F. Supp. 2d 174 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Jul 20, 2001

Qualified Immunity by State Defendants The state defendants claim qualified immunity in their individual capacities. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from being held liable for civil damages arising from their actions which do not violate clearly established statutory or

Bernier v. Obama

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 8, 2018

were not clearly established at the time the alleged violations occurred. … As noted above, this court dismissed Plaintiff’s Bivens claim on the second “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity test. See Pearson v.

Velez Ex Rel. Velez v. Reynolds

325 F. Supp. 2d 293 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 10, 2004

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions are generally shielded from liability for civil damages “if either (1) their conduct did not violate clearly established rights … Summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds is thus appropriate if a right is not clearly established or if no reasonable jury, looking at the evidence in the light most favorable to, and drawing all inferences most favorable

Gray v. Taylor

714 F. Supp. 2d 903 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 28, 2010

Qualified Immunity The defendants’ asserted defense of qualified immunity is groundless. … The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability when performing discretionary functions so long as “them conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

JOSEPH'S HOUSE AND SHELTER v. City of Troy, NY

641 F. Supp. 2d 154 · District Court, N.D. New York · Feb 5, 2009

Currently before the Court is Defendant City’s motion, for summary judgment on the grounds of legislative immunity and privilege, failure to establish prima facie retaliation, and the presence of a legitimate non-retaliatory … defense, either qualified or absolute, in a suit under § 1983.”

Puliafico v. County of San Bernardino

42 F. Supp. 2d 1000 · District Court, C.D. California · Apr 12, 1999

To determine whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court asks “whether reasonable officers could have believed their conduct lawful under the clearly established principles of law governing that … could have believed their conduct lawful under the clearly established principles of law governing that conduct.”

J.C. ex rel. R.C. v. Beverly Hills Unified School District

711 F. Supp. 2d 1094 · District Court, C.D. California · May 6, 2010

In the Ninth Circuit, specific binding precedent is not required to show that a right is clearly established for purposes of the qualified immunity analysis. Maraziti v. … In sum, Hart, Lue-Sang, and Warren are clearly entitled to qualified immunity in this case. IV.

Hargraves v. District of Columbia

134 F. Supp. 3d 68 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 22, 2015

Qualified Immunity In suits brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, “[p]ublic officials are immune from suit . . . … Consequently, whether qualified immunity applies “‘generally turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the [official’s] action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time.’”

Fields v. Department of Public Safety

911 F. Supp. 2d 373 · District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Nov 27, 2012

Further, it is well-settled 5th Circuit law that Title VII has clearly abrogated the States’' Eleventh Amendment immunity. Accord, Pegues v. … To make out a prima facie case for disparate treatment, a plaintiff must establish four elements: (1) she is a member of a protected group; (2) she applied and was qualified for a position; (3) she was rejected; and (4) the

ESTATE OF KOULTA v. City of Centerline

427 F. Supp. 2d 759 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 31, 2006

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that they are immune from suit on the basis of qualified *765 immunity. Motion to Dismiss at 5. Citing Sova v. City of Mt. … Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001), a state official is protected by qualified immunity unless the Plaintiff shows (1) that the Defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) the right was clearly

Scholl v. Pavilonis

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 5, 2025

immunity. … App’x 910, 915 (3d Cir. 2005) (complaint may be subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) based on qualified immunity “when the immunity is established on the face of the complaint” (cleaned up)).

Petrichko v. Kurtz

117 F. Supp. 2d 467 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 4, 2000

Qualified Immunity Defendants’ contention that they are entitled to qualified immunity is not supported by the law or the facts. … Therefore, I conclude that defendants are not entitled to immunity from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity. 5.

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.

Munchinski v. Solomon

258 F. Supp. 3d 534 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 27, 2017

to turn over this evidence was not clearly established constitutional law until 1995. … Because such a right was not clearly established in this Circuit at the time of Gibson’s conviction, Troopers Pennypacker and Reilly are entitled to qualified immunity with regard to their failure to inform the prosecutor

Rosales v. City of Phoenix

202 F. Supp. 2d 1055 · District Court, D. Arizona · Sep 9, 1999

Qualified Immunity “Officers are entitled to qualified immunity even if they acted unconstitutionally, as long as a reasonable officer could have believed the conduct lawful.” Alexander v. … immunity.

Fewless Ex Rel. Fewless v. Board of Education of Wayland Union Schools

208 F. Supp. 2d 806 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Jul 11, 2002

An official protected by qualified immunity may be held personally liable for an allegedly unlawful official action if the action assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time of the action … Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 609 , 119 S.Ct. 1692 , 143 L.Ed.2d 818 (1999) (stating that “clearly established,” for purposes of qualified immunity, means that the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable

Wilson v. Harper

949 F. Supp. 714 · District Court, S.D. Iowa · Nov 14, 1996

Prison officials are entitled to qualified immunity “ ‘if, at the time of the challenged acts, it was not clearly established that those actions would violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person would have … “The qualified immunity inquiry involves a two-step process.” Munz v. Michael, 28 F.3d 795, 799 (8th Cir.1994). First, the plaintiff must allege violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Rudolph v. Adamar of New Jersey, Inc.

153 F. Supp. 2d 528 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 31, 2001

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (qualified immunity), Wood v. … The question of whether the Defendants are entitled to assert qualified immunity is not presented and need not be addressed by this Court.

McCall-Bey v. Kirner

233 F. Supp. 2d 1009 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 26, 2002

Qualified immunity shields those government officials performing discretionary functions “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … As a preliminary matter, because the defense of qualified immunity only applies to officials acting within the scope of their discretionary authority, a defendant claiming qualified immunity “must demonstrate objective circumstances

Broulette v. Starns

161 F. Supp. 2d 1021 · District Court, D. Arizona · Aug 27, 2001

Qualified immunity protects government officers from liability unless the law is clearly established and the party asserting qualified immunity objectively could not have believed that his conduct was lawful. … DISCUSSION A defendant in a § 1983 action has qualified immunity from suit and from liability if, applying an objective standard, a reasonable officer could believe that his conduct was lawful in the light of clearly established