Case law

Lederman v. Adams

45 F. Supp. 2d 259 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 25, 1999

Town of Babylon, 986 F.2d 646, 650 (2d Cir.1993)). (3) Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields police officers from personal liability for “official conduct that ‘does not violate clearly established … Here, a question of fact remains as to whether Adams had probable cause to arrest plaintiff or is otherwise entitled to qualified immunity.

Roberto Rivas v. County of Orange

District Court, C.D. California · Apr 14, 2023

clearly 3 established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would 4 have known.” … To 6 determine whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court asks, in 7 the order it chooses, (1) whether the alleged misconduct violated a constitutional 8 right; and (2) whether the right was clearly

Catone v. Spielmann

966 F. Supp. 1288 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jun 19, 1997

(b) Qualified Immunity The preceding discussion, however, makes clear that Spielmann is entitled to qualified *1297 immunity on plaintiffs First Amendment claim. … Qualified immunity also will protect a defendant, even where the right was clearly established, if it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe the acts did not violate that right. See Benitez v.

D.H. ex rel. Dawson v. Clayton County School District

904 F. Supp. 2d 1301 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Nov 16, 2012

Qualified Immunity Analysis Chief Kimbrough argues that he is immune to suit based on qualified immunity. Plaintiff argues that his right was sufficiently established such that qualified immunity should not apply. … To analyze the availability of the qualified immunity defense, the court must determine both whether the plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to make out a constitutional violation and whether the right as issue was clearly

Eldridge v. Bouchard

645 F. Supp. 749 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Oct 9, 1986

To succeed in a § 1983 action, a plaintiff must establish a deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution or the federal law. Parratt v. … Thus, the evidence clearly supports the need for the differential in Division Seven so that VDSP can remain competitive.

Howard v. Schoberle

907 F. Supp. 671 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 5, 1995

Qualified Immunity The City Defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims. … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense under § 1983 which shields a defendant sued in his individual capacity from liability for civil damages insofar as [his] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Howell Ex Rel. Patterson v. City of Catoosa

729 F. Supp. 1308 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jan 3, 1990

the law and that the law was clearly established when the violation occurred. … Qualified immunity “is an immunity from suit” rather than a mere defense to liability. Like absolute immunity, it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial. Powell v.

Hooper v. Sachs

618 F. Supp. 963 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 16, 1985

The second, qualified immunity, is applicable “insofar as [the challenged] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … The right to be free of illegal searches and seizures by private citizens acting as agents of the state is a clearly established one. The issue of absolute immunity is not so easily resolved.

McReynolds Ex Rel. DM v. ALA. DEPT. YOUTH SERV.

426 F. Supp. 2d 1247 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Mar 28, 2006

"Once the official has established that he was engaged in a discretionary function, the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that the official is not entitled to qualified immunity." Id. … Because the Defendants have asserted the defense of qualified immunity, the Court must determine if these allegations substantiate any constitutional violations and, if so, whether the applicable law was clearly established

Transmirra Products Corp. v. Monsanto Chemical Co.

26 F.R.D. 572 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 19, 1960

No concerted action or agreement to violate plaintiff’s confidence has been established. … However, the two are clearly distinct and reflect different policy considerations. In Scourtes v. Fred W.

Dowell v. Lincoln County

927 F. Supp. 2d 741 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Feb 26, 2013

Evaluating qualified immunity involves two steps: (1) determining whether the facts shown by the plaintiff make out a violation of a Constitutional or statutory right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established at … I also find that this right was clearly established at the time of the violation.

Nihiser v. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

979 F. Supp. 1168 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 6, 1997

The state of Ohio has not clearly waived its sovereign immunity from suit in the ease of claims brought under the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act. … The first prong of the Seminole test is clearly satisfied here.

Carter v. Good

951 F. Supp. 1235 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jun 7, 1996

Government officials sued in their individual capacity are protected by qualified immunity as long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … To rule,on qualified immunity, the Court must identify the right violated and determine whether the right was clearly established at the time it was violated. Id., at 795; see also, Pritchett v.

Williams v. State University of New York

635 F. Supp. 1243 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 15, 1986

Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure clearly and succinctly indicates that “a civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court.” … Here, plaintiff has shown to the Court’s satisfaction that she is a member of a racial minority, that she applied for the deputy director of nursing position for which she allegedly was qualified and that she was qualified

Hebshi v. United States

12 F. Supp. 3d 1036 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 31, 2014

“Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established … Plaintiff Has Alleged the Violation of a Clearly Established Constitutional 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.”

Kies v. City of Aurora

156 F. Supp. 2d 970 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 16, 2001

Smith argues that, even if he did not have probable cause to arrest Kies, he is entitled to qualified immunity for this arrest. … He also argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity based on these offenses. The court will address each offense in turn, i.

Rasnick v. Dickenson County School Board

333 F. Supp. 2d 560 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Sep 10, 2004

A public official is entitled to immunity from a damage suit under § 1983 “insofar as [the official’s] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Bd. of Educ., 329 F.Supp.2d 762 , 769 (N.D.W.Va.2004) (holding that the right was clearly established as far back as 1980). Thus, qualified immunity on the present record is not appropriate.

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.

Thomas v. Barker

371 F. Supp. 2d 636 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 6, 2005

Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 507 , 98 S.Ct. 2894 , 57 L.Ed.2d 895 (1978) (recognizing qualified immunity as a general rule). … Consequently, since Plaintiffs claim clearly relates to the prosecuto-rial decision to file charges against him, Defendants are entitled to absolute immunity from monetary damages.