Case law

Roe v. City of New York

232 F. Supp. 2d 240 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 21, 2002

Ryan, 8 N.E.2d at 316 . 17 The Motion for Qualified Immunity is Denied Detective Ho and Officer Hickey have cross-moved for partial summary judgment based on qualified immunity. … If so, it must be determined whether that right was clearly established. Id. at 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

Rebolledo v. Eden

12 F. Supp. 3d 1125 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 31, 2014

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, public officials “performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Where qualified immunity is asserted as the basis for summary judgment, the Court must accept the plaintiffs version of the facts and determine whether they “make out a violation of clearly established law.” Huff v.

Jones v. Performance Service Integrity

492 F. Supp. 2d 590 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Jun 21, 2007

Abuse of Qualified Privileges Plaintiffs fourth count is styled “abuse of qualified privileges.” … Accordingly, Jones has failed to establish a prima facie case for unlawful retaliation. Count five of Jones’s Complaint must be dismissed. 5.

Salaita v. Kennedy

118 F. Supp. 3d 1068 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 6, 2015

Qualified Immunity Lastly, the University argues that the individual Defendants are all entitled to qualified immunity to the extent that they are sued in their individual capacities. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects 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

Simmang v. Texas Board of Law Examiners

346 F. Supp. 2d 874 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Sep 15, 2004

Absent clear and unambiguous statutory language establishing a waiver of immunity, sovereign immunity protects the state, its agencies and officials from suit in state, court. See City of Mexia v. … In official-capacity suits, such as this one, the defenses of absolute (official) immunity and qualified immunity are unavailable. Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 , . 105 S.Ct. 3099, 3105-06 , 87 L.Ed.2d 114 (1985).

Overstreet v. Myers

75 F. Supp. 2d 858 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 22, 1999

Such immunity exists insofar as the conduct in question “does not violate clearly established statutory rights of which a reasonable person would know.” Id. … Sergeant Myers is therefore not entitled to qualified immunity. Ms.

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.

Scott v. City of Lanett

845 F. Supp. 815 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Nov 4, 1993

“Good faith qualified immunity is a doctrine that protects government employees from suit for actions that ‘legitimately require action in which clearly established rights are not implicated’ and the public interest would … For the reasons stated above, Robert Lee Vinson is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.

Davis v. Bruce

215 F.R.D. 612 · District Court, D. Kansas · Mar 24, 2003

Accordingly, *619 the individual defendants raise the defense of qualified immunity. … Presentation of the defense of qualified immunity shifts the burden to the plaintiff to show that “(1) the official violated a constitutional or statutory right; and (2) the constitutional or statutory right was clearly established

Close v. American Airlines, Inc.

587 F. Supp. 1062 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 27, 1984

Here the event clearly was an act performed outside the United States in connection with a commercial activity of the foreign state elsewhere. … All these results, foreseeable at the time of the negligent conduct in Jamaica should qualify as “direct” to allow jurisdiction.

Miller v. Johnson

541 F. Supp. 2d 799 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Mar 27, 2008

federal funds under the statute, which clearly and unambiguously conditions the receipt of such funds on the waiver of immunity). … As the court went on to explain, Section 2000d-7 clearly conditions the receipt of federal funds upon the waiver of constitutional immunity by providing that “[a] State shall not be immune under the Eleventh Amendment of

Richardson v. Oldham

811 F. Supp. 1186 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Dec 16, 1992

In order to satisfy the heightened pleading requirement and maintain a § 1983 action against an official who raises a qualified immunity defense, a complaint must allege with particularity all material facts establishing … Texas law clearly establishes that affidavits notarized by counsel are void in criminal cases. Drummond v. State, 675 S.W.2d 545, 546 (Tex.App.

Mistretta v. Prokesch

5 F. Supp. 2d 128 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 12, 1998

Qualified Immunity “A qualified immunity defense is established if (a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that his action did … is already in the home, Payton is inapplicable; and (3) he is protected by qualified immunity.

Sanders v. City of Fresno

551 F. Supp. 2d 1149 · District Court, E.D. California · Apr 3, 2008

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects “government officials ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … If the officer could have reasonably, but mistakenly, believed that his conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, then the officer will receive qualified immunity.

JURADO SANCHEZ v. Pereira

525 F. Supp. 2d 248 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Oct 25, 2007

Qualified Immunity Prison officials and officers are entitled to qualified immunity from damages in a Section 1983 claim “if they acted with the objective good faith belief that they were not violating the plaintiffs statutory … The three-part inquiry requires the court to consider: (1) whether the *255 plaintiffs allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation; (2) if so, whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged

St. Louis v. Morris

573 F. Supp. 2d 846 · District Court, D. Delaware · Jul 29, 2008

Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Only then may the court proceed to determine if the right violated was clearly established. Id.

Daley v. Harber

234 F. Supp. 2d 27 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 15, 2002

a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. … Although the qualified immunity standard is “not a stringent test,” Rivera v. Murphy, 979 *31 F.2d 259, 263 (1st Cir.1992), Harber has failed to meet it.

Lobato v. New Mexico Environment Department, Environmental Health Division

838 F. Supp. 2d 1213 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Mar 21, 2011

Qualified immunity is unavailable where officers have violated a “clearly established” constitutional right of which a “reasonable person” would have known. See Hope v. … Qualified immunity involves a two-part test: (a) whether the officer committed a constitutional violation and (b) if so, whether the right was clearly established. See id.; Pearson v.

Finkle v. BOARD OF EDUC. OF SYOSSET CENT. SCHOOL

386 F. Supp. 2d 119 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 12, 2005

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that even if their actions violated Plaintiff's Constitutional or State law rights, Defendants are protected from liability by qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields school officials from liability for damages where "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

Blake v. Town of Delaware City

441 F. Supp. 1189 · District Court, D. Delaware · Nov 14, 1977

Maloney, 428 F.Supp. 1278 (D.Del.1977), as supporting his contention that legislators enjoy only a qualified immunity. In Cohen v. … To avoid liability under the qualified immunity established in Scheuer a defendant official must show: (1) that he acted within the scope of his authority; (2) that he acted in good faith; and (3) that his actions were reasonable