Case law

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.

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.

Eliason Corp. v. Bureau of Safety & Regulation of the Michigan Department of Labor

564 F. Supp. 1298 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · May 25, 1983

The deputies argue, among other things, that they are entitled to qualified good-faith immunity. … The Supreme Court has recently refined the limits of qualified good-faith immunity, holding that government officials are shielded from liability for damages when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

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.

Celona v. Erickson

270 F. Supp. 3d 473 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 19, 2017

The qualified 'immunity inquiry has two parts. … Pierre is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to this claim.

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.

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.

Román v. University of Puerto Rico

799 F. Supp. 2d 120 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jul 27, 2011

Therefore, the Court concludes that Cardona’s Title V claims clearly arise out of Title I, the employment discrimination provision. 42 U.S.C. § 12112 . … Thus, while the First Circuit established a new test for evaluating Eleventh Amendment immunity, the result for the UPR is consistent with the First Circuit’s vast prior precedent also affording Eleventh Amendment protection

Wallace v. Suffolk County Police Department

396 F. Supp. 2d 251 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 15, 2005

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability resulting from the performance of their discretionary functions only where their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … In order to establish entitlement to qualified immunity, the Defendants must demonstrate that either: (1) their actions did not clearly violate Plaintiffs First Amendment rights, or (2) it was objectively reasonable for them

K.U. Ex Rel. Michael U. v. Alvin Independent School District

991 F. Supp. 599 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jan 6, 1998

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for conduct in the course of their official duties unless the alleged conduct violated clearly established law of which a reasonable public official would have … As discussed previously, Plaintiff has failed to establish the violation of a clearly established right. Therefore, Tiemann is entitled to qualified immunity in his individual capacity for claims under section 1983.

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.

Burton v. Peartree

326 F. Supp. 755 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 5, 1971

United States are immune from suit. … Consequently, these defendants are also immune from suit. Burton commenced this action against forty-four named defendants. All of the defendants, however, are immune from suit under the Civil Rights Acts.

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.

Gilliam v. United States Department of Justice

128 F. Supp. 3d 134 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 1, 2015

Supp. 2d 300, 311 (D.D.C. 2013) (stating that “a plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to establish that the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity” at the motion to dismiss stage). … Thus, Plaintiff faces a high bar to establish that the individual law enforcement officials are not entitled to qualified immunity. See Messerschmidt, 132 S. Ct. at 1245.

Woodard v. Town of Oakman

885 F. Supp. 2d 1216 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Jul 27, 2012

“Qualified immunity protects government officials sued in their individual capacities as long as their conduct does not violate ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … “The qualified immunity defense may be raised and addressed on a motion to dismiss, and will be granted if the complaint ‘fails to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.’ ” Id.