Case law

Manos v. Caira

162 F. Supp. 2d 979 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 30, 2001

police officers do not violate clearly-established statutory or constitutional rights. … Further, because defendants do not address whether those constitutional rights were clearly established at the time of the deprivation, the Court finds that defendants’ qualified immunity argument has not been properly raised

Brown v. Selwin

250 F. Supp. 2d 299 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 24, 1999

(Mukasey Order dated June 18, 1998). 17 *309 Qualified Immunity Defense Brown’s claims against the State Defendants may (also) be dismissed on the grounds of qualified immunity. … “Even where the plaintiffs federal rights and the scope of the official’s permissible conduct are clearly established, the qualified immunity defense protects a government actor if it was ‘objectively reasonable’ for him

Owens v. Town of Delhi

469 F. Supp. 2d 403 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Jan 4, 2007

Defendants claim that Owens consented to search, and alternatively, that Officer Nielsen is entitled to qualified immunity because his conduct was objectively reasonable under the circumstances. … Assuming that the plaintiff has raised a genuine issue of material fact for trial on the constitutional issue, the court must then address the qualified immunity issue: whether it was clearly established that the officer

Estate of Phillips v. District of Columbia

355 F. Supp. 2d 212 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 11, 2005

immunity. … In -its analysis, the Circuit Court noted that for an official to be personally liable, “that official must have violated a constitutional right, and that right must have been ‘clearly established’ — ‘the contours of the

Shapiro v. Cooke

552 F. Supp. 581 · District Court, N.D. New York · Oct 27, 1982

Plaintiff contends that, had he worked in Maryland as an “Assistant People’s Counsel’^ for the past five years, he would clearly satisfy the requirements of the New York rule. … Simply because the plaintiff cannot qualify for this preference, but must qualify on the same terms as the life-long citizen of New York, gives him no right to complain.

Healey v. Bendick

628 F. Supp. 681 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Feb 12, 1986

As the Court has most recently noted, whether or not an officer should prevail on his qualified immunity defense “depends upon the ‘objective reasonableness of [his] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established … Basing the suitability vel non of Bendick’s conduct solely upon reference to clearly established law, as required in Davis, 104 S.Ct. at 3018 , he is entitled to the anodyne of qualified executive immunity and is thereby

Hogue v. City of Fort Wayne

599 F. Supp. 2d 1009 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 23, 2009

to qualified immunity. … right; (2) whether that constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”

Hall v. Ochs

623 F. Supp. 367 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 27, 1985

Farrell, at 6 *374 (“The district court erred when it stated ‘the issue of qualified immunity is almost universally one which presents a question of fact to be determined by the trier of fact.’ ... … “Factual disputes will result in denial of summary judgment” and in submission of the case to the jury “when they are relevant to the qualified immunity defense----” Floyd , at 6.

Delta Turner, Ltd. v. Grand Rapids—Kent County Convention/Arena Authority

600 F. Supp. 2d 920 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Jan 30, 2009

to plead a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and qualified immunity; and (5) that the Court should decline to exercise its discretion to provide declaratory relief? … CAA—Municipality Immunity As established in Parker, 317 U.S. 341 , 63 S.Ct. 307 , the general test for whether state action immunity applies to CAA as a municipality is: 2 whether the municipality is acting pursuant to “clearly

Edwards v. Hare

682 F. Supp. 1528 · District Court, D. Utah · Mar 29, 1988

Clearly, these are functions normally performed by a judge.”); Lewis v. … In the former, the judge is absolutely immune. In the latter, the judge retains only a qualified immunity. 8 .The pertinent portion of the former code provision reads: Section 1.

City of Worcester v. HCA Management Co., Inc.

753 F. Supp. 31 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 26, 1990

Qualified, rather than absolute, immunity applies when a federal employee violates an established constitutional rule, unless "absolute immunity is essential for the conduct of public business.” Butz v. … As the complaint in this case does not allege intentional misconduct by Blue Cross, this Court will not delve into the specific situations in which qualified immunity, instead of absolute immunity, will apply to the actions

Smith v. Equifax Information Services, LLC

522 F. Supp. 2d 822 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Nov 15, 2007

Defendant further argues that “Plaintiffs request for injunctive relief is an attempt to circumvent [the] qualified immunity [provided to consumer reporting agencies under § 1681h(e)] and impose obligations on CSC beyond … Plaintiff claims that defendant is not provided qualified immunity under § 1681h(e) since only disclosures under §§ 1681g, 1681h, and 1681m are protected under this provision. Id. at 10-15.

Koutnik v. Brown

351 F. Supp. 2d 871 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Dec 30, 2004

In most instances, qualified immunity is regarded as sufficient to protect government officials in the exercise of their duties. Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 , 113 S.Ct. 2606 , 125 L.Ed.2d 209 (1993). … Qualified immunity protects officials from liability for the performance of discretionary functions when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Wren v. Jones

457 F. Supp. 234 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Aug 21, 1978

These defenses concern qualified immunity and good faith. … They have been unable to establish any basis for qualified immunity. They must be held liable for compensatory damages and attorneys’ fees.

Rimsat, Ltd. v. Hilliard

207 B.R. 964 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 10, 1997

The four-prong collateral estoppel test has clearly been met. This court is therefore barred from ruling upon the previously determined issue of Hil-liard’s immunity under the FSIA. … As such, he does not qualify for immunity under the FSIA, despite his status as a Nevis appointed receiver. Jugobanka d.d. New York Agency v. Unis Int’l Corp., No. 93C1865, 1995 WL 3987 , at *4 (N.D.Ill.

Ascolese v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority

925 F. Supp. 351 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 17, 1996

Van de Beek’s Right to Qualified Immunity Finally, van de Beek argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity as to Ascolese’s section 1983 claim. … SEPTA’s motion for summary judgment as to van de Beek’s qualified immunity is DENIED. 4.

Zaragoza v. City of San Antonio, Tex.

464 F. Supp. 1163 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Jan 15, 1979

The immunity in either case should be the same — the qualified good-faith and reasonable-belief immunity recognized in Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 , 94 S.Ct. 1683 , 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974). … “We therefore hold that, in a suit for damages arising from unconstitutional action, federal executive officials exercising discretion are entitled only to the qualified immunity specified in Scheuer , subject to those exceptional

Allen v. Wrightson

800 F. Supp. 1235 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 1, 1992

Qualified Immunity Government officials performing discretionary functions are protected from civil damages liability by qualified immunity so long as “their actions could reasonably have been thought consistent with the … Qualified immunity protects all government officials except those who are “plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 , 106 S.Ct. 1092 , 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986).

Albritten v. Dougherty County, Ga.

973 F. Supp. 1455 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Jan 3, 1997

Clearly Established Law “For qualified immunity to be surrendered, pre-existing law must dictate, that is, truly compel (not just suggest or allow or raise a question about), the conclusion for every like-situated, reasonable … Having previously established that the plaintiffs rights under the Fourth Amendment were clearly established at the time of Albritten’s arrest, the defendants’ are not entitled to qualified immunity in their individual capacities

Mosier v. Kentucky

675 F. Supp. 2d 693 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Dec 9, 2009

This is sufficient to establish injury-in-fact for purposes of standing. … Plaintiff argues that all elements have been established.