Case law

Boothe v. Islamic Republic of Iran

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 24, 2026

Supp. 2d 136, 155 (D.D.C. 2010) (holding that “the elements of immunity and liability . . . are essentially the same,” such that if the immunity waiver applies and a cause of action exists, liability is established). … Under the first approach, the remaining Plaintiffs have clearly established Iran’s liability because liability exists whenever the terrorism exception and § 1605A(c) cause of action are satisfied. See Foley, 804 F.

Fairbanks v. American Can Co.

110 F.R.D. 685 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 2, 1986

It is well established that the Rules of Civil Procedure contemplate broad and liberal discovery. … Under Rule 26(b)(3) three conditions must be satisfied in order to establish work product protection.

Lugo v. U.S. Department of Justice

214 F. Supp. 3d 32 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2016

The Court need not decide whether such an extension is warranted, however, because qualified immunity is clearly available. … “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

Reyes v. Hickenlooper

84 F. Supp. 3d 1204 · District Court, D. Colorado · Mar 25, 2015

“When a defendant pleads qualified immunity, the plaintiff has the heavy burden of establishing: (1) that the defendant’s actions violated a federal constitutional or statutory right; and (2) that the right violated was clearly … Concerning the second part of the test, “[a] right is clearly established when a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision is on point, or if the clearly established weight of authority from other courts shows that the right

Allen v. Brown

185 F. Supp. 3d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 6, 2016

Bivens established that federal officials can be sued in their individual capacities for actions taken under the color of law that violate the Fourth Amendment, but the doctrine of qualified immunity protects government … For the same reason, it is premature at this juncture to conclude that Chief Brown is protected from liability by the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Coles v. Carlini

162 F. Supp. 3d 380 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 30, 2015

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials liability for civil damages as long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … The qualified immunity claim is traditionally analyzed in two steps.

Clary v. City of Cape Girardeau

165 F. Supp. 3d 808 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Feb 29, 2016

right, and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the violation.” … If the right was clearly established, then “a reasonable official would have known that [his] actions were unlawful,” and no immunity attaches. Clayborn v.

Pelzer v. City of Philadelphia

656 F. Supp. 2d 517 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 31, 2009

Qualified immunity Officer Burton argues that even if the court determined his actions violated Pelzer's constitutional rights, he is entitled to qualified immunity and the plaintiffs claim should be dismissed. … 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

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.

Smith v. City of Elyria

857 F. Supp. 1203 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 28, 1994

An individual defendant is qualifiedly immune from personal liability for damages under § 1983 if a reasonable police officer could have believed that his or her actions were lawful, in light of clearly established law and … However, the Court finds that these rights were not “clearly established” at the time of the officers’ actions here.

Marlatt v. Murray County Jail

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Oct 29, 2024

Qualified Immunity Application of the summary judgment standard slightly differs where, as here, an individual defendant asserts the affirmative defense of qualified immunity … To overcome this defense, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the defendant violated a clearly established constitutional right. See Dist. of Columbia v. Wesby, 583 U.S. 48, 62-63 (2018).

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.

Petersen v. Cazemier

164 F. Supp. 2d 1217 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 23, 2001

Such agents are entitled to qualified immunity, unless a reasonable officer would have known that the conduct at issue was unlawful under clearly established law. LaLonde v. … In such a case, qualified immunity is inappropriate because a reasonable officer would surely know that such action was unlawful under clearly established law. 5 To survive defendants’ summary judgment motion, plaintiff must

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

Jaundoo v. Clarke

783 F. Supp. 2d 190 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 28, 2011

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 … “[T]he second, ‘clearly established,’ step of the qualified immunity analysis ... in turn, has two aspects.” Maldonado v. Fontanes, 568 F.3d 263, 269 (1st Cir.2009).

Wang v. STATE UNIVERSITY OF NY

470 F. Supp. 2d 178 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 23, 2006

Qualified immunity "shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages `insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Schiavone and Glass are entitled to qualified immunity. It was objectively reasonable for Drs. Schiavone and Glass to believe that their acts did not violate any clearly established rights of Plaintiff.

Olsen v. United States

694 F. Supp. 1484 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 20, 1988

Qualified Immunity Notwithstanding the sovereign immunity defense, the individual federal defendants are also qualifiedly immune from liability. … Government officials performing discretionary functions are qualifiedly immune from liability if a reasonable officer would not understand that what he is doing violates a clearly established right. Anderson v.

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.

Marria v. Broaddus

200 F. Supp. 2d 280 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 27, 2002

’s actions were objectively unreasonable in fight of clearly established law.” … State officials seeking qualified immunity are shielded from liability for monetary damages if, at the time they acted, either (1) their conduct “did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would

Jandro v. Foster

53 F. Supp. 2d 1088 · District Court, D. Colorado · Jun 7, 1999

Qualified immunity shields public officials from civil damages liability if their actions did not “ ‘violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Pino v. … right was clearly established at the relevant time.