Case law

Stafford v. Argo, City of

District Court, N.D. Alabama · Jan 21, 2021

qualified immunity. … Talladega City Bd. of Educ., 115 F.3d 821, 826 n.4 (11th Cir. 1997) (“In this circuit, the law can be ‘clearly established’ for qualified immunity purposes only by decisions of the U.S.

Swate v. Taylor

12 F. Supp. 2d 591 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Aug 28, 1998

Officials may qualify for this conditional immunity from liability by showing that the circumstances involved a right of the citizen that was not clearly established and that their actions were objectively reasonable in light … of standards that were clearly established.

Jackson v. United States

77 F. Supp. 2d 709 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 22, 1999

The United States does not dispute that the Customs officers qualify as "law enforcement officers” for the purposes of the FTCA. … Although the Court does not address the issue here, the Customs officers are entitled to assert qualified immunity on Jackson's FTCA claims. See Norton v. United States, 581 F.2d 390 (4th Cir.1978).

Chandler v. Georgia Public Telecommunications Commission

749 F. Supp. 264 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Oct 18, 1990

Eleventh Amendment Immunity Defendant argues that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction because GPTC is protected from suit by Eleventh Amendment immunity. … GPTC clearly has as its legitimate purpose the dissemination of newsworthy information in a format it judges to be responsive to the demands of the public.

Meyers v. City of Cincinnati

728 F. Supp. 477 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 4, 1990

Plaintiff must assert a particular and clearly established violation of his constitutional rights to prevail against a claim of qualified immunity. Garvie v. Jackson, 845 F.2d 647, 649-50 (6th Cir.1988). … Defendants are' not entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff’s claim that he was deprived of such rights since they were clearly established at the time of his demotion.

Payton v. RUSH-PRESBYTERIAN-ST. LUKE'S MED. CENTER

82 F. Supp. 2d 901 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 27, 2000

Qualified Immunity We begin our analysis of qualified immunity with a brief description of the parties in this case. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), established that government officials performing discretionary functions are immune from damages as long as their conduct did not "violate clearly established

Garcia v. Texas State Board of Medical Examiners

384 F. Supp. 434 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Oct 21, 1974

It can be done only by a duly qualified human being, and to qualify something more than mere knowledge or skill is essential . No corporation can qualify.” … The Texas statutes clearly have a rational basis to justify the restrictions imposed.

National Bank of Fairhaven v. United States

660 F. Supp. 125 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 16, 1987

Individual federal employees possess qualified immunity from law suits for their actions taken in the course of their official duties. Fernandez v. Leonard, 784 F.2d 1209, 1214 (1st Cir.1986). … Finally, the Bank has not shown that any “clearly established” Due Process rights were violated. Consequently, Mr. Brooks is protected by qualified immunity.

Barry v. Luzerne County

447 F. Supp. 2d 438 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 9, 2006

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability as long ‘as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … “Where the [Pickering] balancing factors weigh heavily in favor of the employee, the law is clearly established and qualified immunity is unavailable.” Id. (quoting Ceballos v.

Kling v. Harris Teeter Inc.

338 F. Supp. 2d 667 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Nov 21, 2002

Qualified immunity shields government officials from personal liability under § 1983 “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … The purpose of qualified immunity is “to remove most civil liability actions, except those where the official clearly broke the law, from the legal process well in advance of the submission of the facts to. a jury.”

Deferio v. City of Syracuse

306 F. Supp. 3d 492 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jan 31, 2018

Qualified immunity entitles public officials to freedom from liability for civil damages, as a result of the consequences of the performance of their discretionary duties, when "their conduct does not violate clearly established … Therefore, Sweeny is not entitled to qualified immunity. B.

Melton v. District of Columbia

85 F. Supp. 3d 183 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 27, 2015

“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 … Because qualified immunity is “an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability, ... it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial.” Mitchell v.

Spencer v. Hendersen-Webb, Inc.

81 F. Supp. 2d 582 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 16, 1999

FCRA provides qualified immunity from state law defamation claims to those who furnish information to a consumer reporting agency. … The Court will grant Defendants’ Motion as to the 1998 reporting of Spencer’s debt because they are entitled to the qualified immunity provided by FCRA.

Schaurer v. Fogg

885 F. Supp. 28 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jan 11, 1995

qualified immunity. … “Once qualified immunity is pleaded, plaintiffs complaint will be dismissed unless defendant’s alleged conduct, when committed, violated ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Diaz-Nieves v. United States

29 F. Supp. 3d 71 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jul 9, 2014

Defendant argues, citing the First Circuit Court of Appeals’ opinion in Rodriguez , that Puerto Rico law recognizes a qualified immunity defense for federal officers involved in these misidentification cases. … Because this case does not involve Bivens claims or a qualified immunity defense, Solis-Alarcon does not govern the Court’s analysis. .

Marr v. Anderson

611 F. Supp. 2d 1130 · District Court, D. Nevada · Feb 25, 2009

Qualified Immunity Finally, Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. *1147 Qualified immunity protects state officials from civil liability for damages resulting from discretionary acts, so long as those … “If the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.” Id. at 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

Wandering Dago Inc. v. New York State Office of General Services

992 F. Supp. 2d 102 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jan 15, 2014

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Although the OGS Defendants may eventually establish that they are entitled to qualified immunity, they have failed to convince the Court that it is appropriate at this time. IV.

Hale O Kaula Church v. Maui Planning Commission

229 F. Supp. 2d 1056 · District Court, D. Hawaii · Oct 24, 2002

Applied here, the Court has little difficulty concluding that Min is entitled to qualified immunity. … Given the finding of absolute quasi-judicial immunity, the Court need not reach whether those individual defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity.

Barrella v. Village of Freeport

43 F. Supp. 3d 136 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 28, 2014

And as far as qualified immunity is concerned, this is certainly a discrimination case which is classic of a violation of a clearly established constitutional and statutory right. … “Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions ‘from, liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Schaub v. County of Olmsted

656 F. Supp. 2d 990 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Sep 9, 2009

Government officials performing discretionary functions are generally entitled to qualified immunity unless they violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … Pearson, 19 F.3d 439, 440 (8th Cir.1994). *997 As the constitutional right to medical treatment was clearly established, the Court finds the remaining defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. 2.