Case law

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.

Bach v. Pataki

289 F. Supp. 2d 217 · District Court, N.D. New York · Sep 23, 2003

By his affidavit, plaintiff has established facts demonstrating that as a matter of law he does not qualify for a permit under section 400.00 of New York’s Penal Law by its plain terms and as it has been construed by New … New York clearly has a strong interest in licensing firearms.

Miller v. Kennebec County

63 F. Supp. 2d 75 · District Court, D. Maine · Aug 30, 1999

violated clearly established law. … that the challenged conduct violated that clearly established right.

Stanley v. United States

574 F. Supp. 474 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Oct 28, 1983

While sovereign immunity has constitutional underpinnings and is as absolute as Congress may intend, official immunity is judge-made and generally is qualified. 26 *485 In order to avoid obscuring the concepts of sovereign … The Court reasons that if the Feres doctrine applies, then military officers may be subject to qualified immunity from suit.

Mason v. City of New York

949 F. Supp. 1068 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 17, 1996

The defense of qualified immunity has been summarized as follows: “Government officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from personal liability ‘insofar, as their conduct does not violate clearly established … But that is far too general a statement for meaningful qualified immunity analysis.

Anderson v. Burge

539 F. Supp. 2d 684 · District Court, W.D. New York · Mar 26, 2008

Moreover, even if a violation of plaintiffs rights could be found, defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity for their actions. … Qualified immunity shields public officials “from civil damages liability insofar as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,’ Harlow

Arlio v. Lively

392 F. Supp. 2d 317 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Sep 28, 2005

He seeks judgment as a matter of law on the basis of qualified immunity [Doc. # 63] and excessive damages [Doc. # 65]. … The defendant misapprehends the standard for qualified immunity in a First Amendment retaliation case.

Katz v. McVeigh

931 F. Supp. 2d 311 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Mar 15, 2013

therefore barred by qualified immunity as well. … “Qualified immunity shields ... state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a constitutional or statutory right and (2) that the right was clearly established

Schuckman v. Babin

District Court, D. Kansas · Mar 6, 2025

The Court proceeds directly to the second qualified-immunity prong: whether these rights were clearly established. … Schuckman has not shown a violation of clearly established rights. Both officers are therefore entitled to qualified immunity. B.

Saffron v. Wilson

70 F.R.D. 51 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 2, 1975

These defendants are presently before the Court, seeking dismissal, or in the alternative, summary judgment, essentially on the ground that they enjoy either an absolute or a qualified immunity from prosecution in this action … Instead, reliance must now be placed on the defense afforded by the doctrine of qualified immunity. C. QUALIFIED IMMUNITY UNDER THE SCHEUERr-APTON TEST In Scheuer v.

Dietrich v. Burrows

976 F. Supp. 1099 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 19, 1997

Qualified Immunity The second issue before the Court is whether, despite the lack of probable cause, the officers have qualified immunity for their actions. … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields public officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of

Republic of Philippines Ex Rel. Central Bank of the Philippines v. Marcos

665 F. Supp. 793 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 11, 1987

The government argues that the FSIA only waives sovereign immunity in certain commercial situations and, thus, is not applicable in the instant case. This is clearly incorrect. … . §§ 1251 , 1351, 1364), which established the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 23 U.S.T. 3227, T.I.A.S.

Martinez v. Goddard

521 F. Supp. 2d 1002 · District Court, D. Arizona · Sep 20, 2007

In order to prevail, [Plaintiff] must establish that [the statute] is clearly arbitrary and unreasonable ... ”)(internal quotes and citations omitted). … The dispositive issue raised by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is whether the facts as pleaded, if established, support a valid claim for relief. See Neitzke v.

Miller v. Roycroft

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 31, 2024

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages if their conduct “does not violate clearly established … Clearly Established Right The Court now turns to the clearly established prong of qualified immunity.

Williams v. Lehigh Department of Corrections

79 F. Supp. 2d 514 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 22, 1999

Also, Warden Sweeney and Director Klotz seek a ruling of qualified immunity. To the extent that these defendants are sued in their official capacities, qualified immunity does not protect them. See, e.g., W.B. v. … Similarly, as to any suit against the officials in their individual capacities, the Third Circuit has explained that the "defense of qualified official immunity ... is inapplicable to claims for prospective relief.”

Broadaway v. City of New York

601 F. Supp. 624 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 18, 1985

immunity because they neither knew nor should have known that their actions would violate the rights of another” citing Harlow. … While a plunge into the thicket of qualified immunity is apt to be painful, as exemplified by Harlow , in view of the Officers’ position it is necessary.

Wright v. New Jersey/Department of Education

115 F. Supp. 3d 490 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 14, 2015

New York, 251 F.3d 84, 95 (2d Cir.2001) (ruling that plaintiff had not established state waiver of sovereign immunity for ADEA claims due to lack of showing that Congress had used “unmistakably clear language” to condition … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 817-18 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (in qualified immunity context, stating that “[u]ntil th[e] threshold immunity question is resolved, discovery should not be allowed,” because bare

Christie ex rel. Estate of Christie v. Scott

923 F. Supp. 2d 1308 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jan 9, 2013

Qualified Immunity ■ [30] The remaining Corrections Defendants can avoid liability for the deliberate indifference claim if they can establish that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … The Corrections Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on the record before the Court. 2.

DeLeon v. Little

981 F. Supp. 728 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Jun 5, 1997

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil suits arising from the performance of their discretionary functions when their conduct “‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Defendant argues that the doctrine of qualified immunity shields her from liability because Plaintiff cannot show that Defendant’s alleged conduct violated any clearly established constitutional rights, or in the alternative

Smith v. Milwaukee County

954 F. Supp. 1314 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Feb 14, 1997

To the contrary, qualified immunity shields government officials who are performing discretionary functions from liabiEty for eivE damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly estabhshed statutory or constitutional … Given these circumstances, the court concludes that Defendant Artison is not entitled to qualified immunity from liability for money damages. VI.