Case law

Kantha v. Blue

262 F. Supp. 2d 90 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 2, 2003

Blue is not Entitled to Summary Judgment on the Basis of Qualified Immunity Blue argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. 2 The qualified immunity doctrine shields “government officials performing … were clearly established at the time it was taken.”

Fillmore v. Eichkorn

891 F. Supp. 1482 · District Court, D. Kansas · May 18, 1995

Wyatt, 18 F.3d 869, 871 (10th Cir. 1994): As our jurisprudence makes clear, when a defendant raises qualified immunity, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish the defendant violated clearly established constitutional … be entitled to qualified immunity from any damages award.

Kacher v. Houston Community College System

974 F. Supp. 615 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Apr 29, 1997

In examining an official’s claim of qualified immunity, courts follow a two-step process. The first step is to ascertain whether the plaintiff alleges “the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” … Whether the conduct of which the plaintiff complains violated clearly established law, so as to preclude the application of qualified immunity, is essentially a legal question. See White v.

Dawkins v. Williams

511 F. Supp. 2d 248 · District Court, N.D. New York · Sep 27, 2007

Defendant’s Qualified Immunity Defense “Once qualified immunity is pleaded, plaintiffs complaint will be dismissed unless defendant’s alleged conduct, when committed, violated ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional … Wolff, 985 F.2d 662, 666 (2d Cir. 1993) (qualified immunity protects defendants “even where the rights were clearly established, if it was objectively reasonable for defendants to believe that their acts did not violate those

Jones v. Quintana

658 F. Supp. 2d 183 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2009

The Court declines to consider the merits of Defendant Quintana’s qualified immunity claim at this time. … in light of the relevant qualified immunity case law. 8 3.

AP Ex Rel. Peterson v. Anoka-Hennepin Independent School District No. 11

538 F. Supp. 2d 1125 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Mar 17, 2008

The Minnesota Supreme Court has not been specific, but the standard is clearly not terribly demanding. … District 11 is therefore not entitled to qualified immunity.

Thomas v. Town of Chelmsford

267 F. Supp. 3d 279 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 25, 2017

Qualified Immunity The individual defendants have asserted that they are protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity, “[T]he qualified immunity inquiry is a two-part test. … In recent years, the Supreme Court has published a.number of.per cu-riam reversals of denials of qualified immunity, emphasizing that “clearly established law” should not be defined “at a high level of generality.”

Johnson v. Waters

970 F. Supp. 991 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Apr 22, 1997

Qualified immunity protects “government officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Defendant Waters’s motions to dismiss and for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, Eleventh Amendment immunity, any and all other grounds are DENIED.

Travelers Health Network v. Orleans Parish School Board

842 F. Supp. 236 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Jan 7, 1994

Second, even when plaintiff can establish a federal right, the defendant may show that Congress foreclosed any § 1983 remedy for its violation. … First, certain provisions of the Act were designed “to provide assistance and encouragement for the establishment and expansion of health maintenance organizations____” S.Rep.

Sagehorn v. Independent School District No. 728

122 F. Supp. 3d 842 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Aug 11, 2015

The qualified immunity analysis involves two questions:’ whether the facts, as alleged by the plaintiff, establish a violation of a constitutional right, and whether the constitutional right was clearly established at the … Accordingly, the School Defendants insist that Sagehorn did not have a clearly established right that the officials’ actions violated, and they are thus protected by qualified immunity.

Brown v. Wilhelm

923 F. Supp. 2d 314 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 15, 2013

immunity. … of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.”)

Angueira v. Arias

649 F. Supp. 299 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Oct 21, 1986

qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” … THE QUALIFIED IMMUNITY DEFENSE.

Schultz v. Doher

335 F. Supp. 3d 177 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 27, 2018

Qualified immunity serves as a shield to government officials "from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Courts use a two-part test to determine whether qualified immunity applies: (1) whether the facts alleged by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional right; and if so (2) whether the right was clearly established

Alston v. Virginia High School League, INC.

108 F. Supp. 2d 543 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Aug 19, 1997

Although local governing bodies are, in a sense, arms of the state, the Court has distinguished them from state agencies, because local entities clearly enjoy no immunity from § 1983 suits when the allegedly unconstitutional … up of a group of local government officials, all of whom have individual qualified immunity; and (2) its relationship to the state is akin to that of state employees who have qualified immunity are unpersuasive because of

Mihos v. Swift

235 F. Supp. 2d 45 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 17, 2002

complains violated clearly established law. … The standard for deciding issues concerning a public official’s qualified immunity ordinarily turns on whether the right in question “was clearly established when the harm-inducing conduct allegedly took place.”

DeFiore v. Vignola

823 F. Supp. 315 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 10, 1993

As a general rule, qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions insofar as their conduct docs not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Vignola has been accused of violating Plaintiff's clearly-established constitutional right to freedom of association, we find that an insufficient basis exists to enter judgment in Defendant’s favor on the qualified immunity

Weisbord v. Michigan State University

495 F. Supp. 1347 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Aug 26, 1980

and was qualified for the job for which the defendant was seeking applicants, 3) that, although qualified, he was rejected, and 4) that after plaintiff was rejected the job remained open and applicants were still being sought … Plaintiff has quite clearly made sufficient allegations to support this Title VII theory.

Cole v. Federal Bureau of Investigations

719 F. Supp. 2d 1229 · District Court, D. Montana · Jun 17, 2010

Plaintiffs contend that Defendants Oravec and Weyand are not entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiffs have adequately alleged violations of clearly established rights. Court Doc. 44 at 45-48. … Defendants Oravec and Weyand claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the PRs do not have a clearly established right to an investigation or prosecution of a third party.

Bakalis v. Board of Trustees of Community College District No. 504

948 F. Supp. 729 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 13, 1996

The individual defendants further argue that they are entitled to the defense of qualified immunity, contending that in light of the rule of necessity, it was not clearly established that any bias on their part violated Dr … See id. at 322-23 (governmental officials are accorded qualified immunity if their conduct did not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known”) (citation

Babb v. Eagleton

616 F. Supp. 2d 1195 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Nov 5, 2007

This footnote limited Newcomb’s holding and labeled the Newcomb decision as establishing a form of “parental immunity” from suit. 6 The Heggy court further implied that such parental immunity is directly tied to a parent’ … Witt, 781 F.2d 155, 158 (9th Cir.1986) (holding that absolute immunity cannot attach to a quasi-judicial officer if his actions are “clearly and completely outside the scope of [his] jurisdiction”); Doe v.