Case law

Petrucelli v. Hasty

605 F. Supp. 2d 410 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 25, 2009

A defendant is “entitled to qualified immunity if either (1) his actions did not violate clearly established law or (2) it was objectively unreasonable for him to believe that his actions did not violate clearly established … Id at 167 (explaining that Iqbal’s procedural due process right “was not clearly established with the level of specificity that is required to defeat a qualified immunity defense.”).

Nesbitt v. USA; Graffam

District Court, D. New Hampshire · Dec 16, 1998

Qualified Immunity Even if the court did not give the state court judgment preclusive effect. Agent Graffam would be entitled to the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. … The defendant officer is entitled to immunity "if the federal law allegedly violated was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, or if, at summary judgment, there is no genuine dispute of material

Tohono O'odham Nation v. Ducey

174 F. Supp. 3d 1194 · District Court, D. Arizona · Mar 30, 2016

He concluded that gaming at the casino would not qualify as “Indian gaming permitted under the Tribal-State compact.” Id. … As such, Indian tribes enjoy sovereign immunity. They are not amenable to suit unless Congress has clearly abrogated this immunity or the tribe has clearly waived it. Id. at 2030-31 .

Downey v. Sheahan

136 F. Supp. 3d 472 · District Court, W.D. New York · Oct 6, 2015

(The coürt went on, however, to hold that the defendant parole officers were entitled to qualified immunity, since the law had not been clearly established that imposing a short period of “delinquency time” based on a finding … Finally, even if there were some conceivable basis for a constitutional claim here, the allegations of the complaint plainly show that defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity.

Wilson v. Columbus Board of Education

589 F. Supp. 2d 952 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 11, 2008

Qualiñed Immunity Under the doctrine of qualified immunity “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … Defendant Sisco is thus not entitled to qualified immunity.

O.F. Ex Rel. N.S. v. Chester Upland School District

246 F. Supp. 2d 409 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 10, 2002

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 To establish a violation of § 504, Plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) O.F. is disabled as defined by the Act; (2) she is “otherwise qualified” to participate in school activities … The ADA clearly states Congress’ intent to hold states liable for violations of the ADA. 8 See Lavia, 224 F.3d at 196.

Leach v. Clay

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2022

Legal Standard “Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Rivas-Villegas v. … Because of this similarity, courts’ analysis of the qualified privilege mirrors the qualified-immunity inquiry.

Czikalla v. Malloy

649 F. Supp. 1212 · District Court, D. Colorado · Dec 8, 1986

In In Re Scott County Master Docket, 618 F.Supp. 1534 (D.Minn.1985) the court held: Governmental officials do enjoy a qualified or good faith immunity in Section 1983 actions, (emphasis added). Id. at 1549 . … Absolute immunity was rejected and a qualified immunity (good faith immunity) was allowed. 2 See also Cameron v.

Monteer v. ABL Management Inc.

District Court, E.D. Missouri · Aug 30, 2022

Moreover, because it is not a clearly established constitutional requirement that Durbin is required to provide him with meat in lieu of an ovo-lacto diet, defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. See Thompson v. … The Court further notes that qualified immunity would not prevent this claim from proceeding.

Newman v. Bridgestone/Firestone North Americantire, LLC.

274 F. Supp. 2d 1289 · District Court, S.D. Alabama · Jun 25, 2003

ministerial versus discretionary, as argued by Firestone in the case at bar, but, rather, on the fact that the negligence and wantonness claims were similar to those asserted in the Butts , a case in which the plaintiff clearly … [the such ALDOT employees] have established that they are entitled to State-agent immunity.”)- It is, therefore, conceivable that the Alabama courts could determine that the Complaint filed in this action asserts claims against

Big Bear Cartage, Inc. v. Air Cargo, Inc.

419 F. Supp. 982 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 9, 1976

In short, the service contracts are authorized by an agreement to which an air carrier is a signatory, and qualify for the § 1384 immunity. … Plaintiff does not dispute that Agreement No. 1041, as an agreement among air carriers, qualifies for the § 1384 immunity.

Dixie Brewing Co. v. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

952 F. Supp. 2d 809 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Jun 10, 2013

By relying on the Tucker Act, which no longer confers jurisdiction on this Court, Dixie cannot establish federal question jurisdiction or waiver of sovereign immunity. C. … The case literature clearly establishes the four prerequisites for the issuance of an injunction.

Entergy Arkansas, Inc. v. Nebraska

68 F. Supp. 2d 1104 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Sep 22, 1999

I have considered and rejected the defense of qualified immunity. … This federal obligation was clearly established when the Compact was signed by Nebraska; that is, the obligation of objective good faith imposed on the host state and its employees was plain from the Compact itself.

Caine v. Burge

897 F. Supp. 2d 714 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 14, 2012

The court further found that the prosecutor was not entitled to qualified immunity for alleged pretrial activities because, if proven, the plaintiffs’ asserted claims constitute a violation of a clearly established constitutional … established due process rights.”

Evanouski v. Cantrell

58 F. Supp. 2d 935 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 22, 1999

Judge Cantrell also raises the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Under that doctrine, once Evanouski establishes that his allegations make out a violation of a constitutional right, the inquiry becomes whether the that right was clearly established.

Pakootas v. Teck Cominco Metals, Ltd.

632 F. Supp. 2d 1029 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Jun 19, 2009

Congress can waive a tribe’s immunity from suit, but that waiver must be clearly expressed. Congress has plenary power over tribal sovereignty, but must make clear its intent to limit that sovereignty. … However, such a conclusion is of dubious validity inasmuch as a tribe’s disposal activities would clearly be subject to regulation under RCRA as well as SDWA and the CWA.

Mitchell O/B/O X.M. v. Dakota Cnty. Soc. Servs.

357 F. Supp. 3d 891 · District Court, D. Maine · Jan 28, 2019

Malice is not present if a defendant's conduct (1) objectively was legally reasonable, (2) was performed in good faith, or (3) did not violate a "clearly established" right. Gleason v. Metro. … Because the malice exception to official immunity requires an intentional commission of an act, the amended complaint's allegations of negligence do not qualify for this exception.

FRESH START SUBSTANCE SERVICES, LLC v. Galvin

599 F. Supp. 2d 279 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Feb 13, 2009

the defendant in his individual capacity had been stated in the complaint, such a claim would be precluded by the qualified immunity defense. 7 Analysis of a qualified immunity claim involves a three-step inquiry. … Second, the violated right must have been clearly established at the time of the conduct. Finally, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant’s actions were not objectively reasonable. Id.

Gamboa v. King County

562 F. Supp. 2d 1288 · District Court, W.D. Washington · May 7, 2008

Police officers are, however, entitled to qualified immunity for their actions. … Qualified immunity shields government officials, acting within one of their discretionary functions, from civil liability as long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable

East Coast Serv. Indus. Co. Inc., d/b/a Whiskeys 20, Thomas Svoleantopoulos, and Rosalie Sweeney v. N.H. State Liquor Commission, et al.

2020 DNH 164 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Sep 17, 2020

The motion to dismiss could have more clearly asserted that Plaia and Doe, like the Commission, raised Eleventh Amendment immunity as to Count I. … Therefore, for both Rule 12(b)(6) and the defense of qualified immunity, the court determines whether Whiskeys 20 has stated a constitutional violation. 1.