Case law

IT & E Overseas, Inc. v. RCA Global Communications, Inc.

747 F. Supp. 6 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 12, 1990

Moreover, private parties acting in compliance with clearly articulated government policies and programs are immunized from antitrust liability to the same extent as the government entity. … to the qualified immunity afforded to state and *12 local governments.

Lupo v. Voinovich

858 F. Supp. 699 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 22, 1994

immunity. … The Court also notes that Lupo seeks equitable and declaratory relief, neither of which is affected by an assertion of qualified immunity.

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.

Taylor v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2019

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields police officers, including WMATA police officers, 4 “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … A defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity if the plaintiff establishes that (1) the defendant’s conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) the right was “clearly established” at the time of the defendant’s

Manley v. Texas Southern University

107 F. Supp. 3d 712 · District Court, S.D. Texas · May 12, 2015

Mar. 11, 1996) (unpublished), the court held that “to establish a claim under Title IX, the plaintiff must establish that an educational institution receiving federal assistance intentionally discriminated on the basis of … Its “sole purpose” is to “declare to the several States, that whatever those rights, as you grant or establish them to your own citizens, or as you limit or qualify, or impose restrictions on their exercise, the same, neither

Cappi S. Thompson v. Zachary J. Howry, et al.

2024 DNH 082 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Sep 30, 2024

County of San Diego, 985 F.3d 657 (9th Cir. 2021), the majority held that “because the clearly established law prong [of the qualified immunity analysis] focuses objectively on whether it would be clear that the defendant … ’s conduct violated the constitution, lack of notice regarding the mental state required to establish liability has no bearing on the [qualified immunity] analysis.”

Burrow Ex Rel. Burrow v. Postville Community School District

929 F. Supp. 1193 · District Court, N.D. Iowa · Jun 17, 1996

The Ninth Circuit assumed arguendo that Title IX applies to peer sexual harassment, but granted the official "qualified immunity” since a duty to prevent peer sexual harassment was not "clearly established” in the case law … Under the principle of qualified immunity ”[g]overnment officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Collins v. Board of Education of North Chicago Community Unit School District 187

792 F. Supp. 2d 992 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 31, 2011

Tort Immunity Act Defendants argue that all of Plaintiffs state law claims are barred by the Illinois Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (the “Tort Immunity Act” or the “Act”), 745 ILCS 10/1-101 … Thus, to the extent Plaintiffs amended complaint sounds in tort, the Tort Immunity Act grants Defendants immunity. Count IV for defamation per quod clearly sounds in tort and is dismissed with prejudice.

Chisholm v. Ramia

639 F. Supp. 2d 240 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Jul 1, 2009

It concludes that even if Plaintiff could establish that Ramia’s memorandum contained stigmatizing statements and was made public, Ramia would be entitled to qualified immunity because the law was — and is — unclear as to … Since the law applicable to determining whether Ramia’s non-retention of Chisholm was a “plus” was not clearly established at the time of his actions, Ramia is entitled to qualified immunity.

Ickes v. Grassmeyer

30 F. Supp. 3d 375 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 2, 2014

For reasons that are not entirely clear, the individual Defendants do not move for dismissal of any federal claims based on qualified immunity. 17 (ECF Nos. 7-10). Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense. … The assault and battery claims brought against the Commonwealth are clearly barred.

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.

Badri v. Huron Hospital

691 F. Supp. 2d 744 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 10, 2010

Aug. 20, 2009) (an abrasive attitude and “personality conflicts” insufficient to establish a qualifying disability). … As observed above, Plaintiff cannot establish that he is a qualified individual with a disability.

Hernandez v. City of Napa

781 F. Supp. 2d 975 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 21, 2011

The standard for qualified immunity is the “ ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.” Anderson v. … Therefore, these cases alone do not clearly establish a triable issue of fact on qualified immunity.

Green v. White

525 F. Supp. 81 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Aug 10, 1981

Defendant premises his motion on a qualified immunity that is warranted by his official position. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , prison officials are entitled to qualified immunity in actions brought by prisoners. … Therefore, if plaintiff’s claim for damages is barred by defendant’s qualified immunity, this cause must be dismissed.

Muhammad v. Klotz

36 F. Supp. 2d 240 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 28, 1999

“As government officials engaged in discretionary functions, [defendants are qualifiedly immune from suits brought against them for damages under section 1983, ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … As the defendants have asserted a qualified immunity defense in a motion for summary judgment, Muhammad must show that the defendants’ conduct violated some clearly established statutory or constitutional right.

Douglas v. City of New York

595 F. Supp. 2d 333 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 24, 2009

the false arrest claim on *341 the basis of qualified immunity. … Applicable Law The doctrine of qualified immunity shields police officers from personal liability for “official conduct that ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Bruneau Ex Rel. Schofield v. South Kortright Central School District

935 F. Supp. 162 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 25, 1996

Qualified Immunity Although the Court need not determine the issue of qualified immunity, it nevertheless will consider the issue at this time. … “The right the government official is alleged to have violated is ‘clearly established,’ and hence beyond any qualified immunity, when the ‘contours’ of the right are sufficiently unambiguous so that a reasonable official

Milwaukee Mobilization for Survival v. Milwaukee County Park Commission

477 F. Supp. 1210 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Oct 3, 1979

Mikula have attempted to invoke the qualified good faith immunity. Fox Valley, supra. … Accordingly, if the defendants Mikula and Koplin successfully establish their qualified good faith immunity, this will also bar recovery of damages from the governmental defendants. *1223 VI.

Goulmamine v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.

138 F. Supp. 3d 652 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Oct 9, 2015

As discussed below, Goulma-mine has raised facts that would allow a jury to find that CVS acted with malice, potentially negating the qualified immunity defense. … outside the scope of *667 its duty, thereby establishing malice and defeating qualified privilege.

Ostensen v. Suffolk County

378 F. Supp. 2d 140 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 18, 2005

Qualified immunity “shields government officials from liability for damages on account of their performance of discretionary official functions ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … the Plaintiffs clearly established rights.