Case law

Allen v. Schiff

908 F. Supp. 2d 451 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 7, 2012

Qualified Immunity ofSchijf Although the Court has found a genuine issue of fact as to the reasonableness of the search, it must still determine whether Sheriff Schiff is entitled to qualified immunity. See Pearson v. … Qualified immunity is immunity from suit rather than a defense to liability. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985).

HARGROVES v. City of New York

694 F. Supp. 2d 198 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 4, 2010

Qualified immunity Under the qualified-immunity doctrine, Defendants can avoid liability even if there are material questions of fact as to probable cause. Brewton, 550 F.Supp.2d at 367 . … Following these decisions, discovery proceeded solely with respect to the question of qualified immunity. {See id. at 12.)

Johnson v. Davis

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 8, 2020

Harris, 935 19 F.3d 670, 676 (9th Cir. 2019) (“[T]here are rare cases where an affirmative defense, such as 20 immunity, may be so clear on the face of the complaint that dismissal may qualify as a strike for 21 … The danger faced by the plaintiff must be “clearly related to [the] initial 4 complaint.” Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2015) (discussing nexus 5 requirement).

SUNLAND PUB. CO., INC. v. City of Jackson

234 F. Supp. 2d 626 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Sep 27, 1999

liability under § 1983. 9 It is now well established that local legislators, like federal, state, and regional legislators, are entitled to absolute immunity from § 1983 liability for their legislative activities. … Further, the Council’s action did not impact a broad group or establish general policy. Therefore, the councilpersons are not entitled to absolute legislative immunity from individual liability under § 1983.

Schand v. City of Springfield

380 F. Supp. 3d 106 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 6, 2019

Trial courts in weighing the question of qualified immunity should not "define clearly established law at a high level of generality." Id. (quoting *135 Kisela v. Hughes , 585 U.S. ----, 138 S. … Given the fact that, as of 1986, the law did not clearly establish that malicious prosecution could form the basis of a § 1983 claim, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity on Count IV.

Walton v. Lyons

962 F. Supp. 126 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Apr 28, 1997

Although the mistake was unfortunate, neither state stab utes nor case law clearly establishes a duty on the part of the State’s Attorney to correct such police records. See 55 ILCS 5/3-9005. … Therefore, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity on that claim. Finally, the plaintiff has no cause of action against the State’s Attorney for failing to prosecute the bar bouncer.

Robertson v. McCloskey

666 F. Supp. 241 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 24, 1987

their conduct did not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … , 753 F.2d at 100 (recognizing qualified immunity for Senate aides charged with violating plaintiff’s constitutional rights); Doe v.

Astrada v. Howard

979 F. Supp. 90 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Apr 8, 1997

Even where the plaintiffs federal rights and the scope of the official’s permissible conduct are clearly established, the qualified immunity defense protects a government actor if it was objectively reasonable for him to … The undisputed facts detailed above lead the court unavoidably to its conclusion that officers Howard, Reis, Carpenter and Allen were shielded by qualified immunity.

WMW MacHinery, Inc. v. Werkzeugmaschinenhandel GmbH IM Aufbau

960 F. Supp. 734 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 27, 1997

The parties do not dispute, for the purposes of this motion, that the Treuhand qualifies as a “foreign state” as defined by the FSIA and is thus immune absent an applicable statutory exception. 6 Plaintiffs contend that subject … An act by an official may qualify as an act of state only upon a showing “that the official had the authority to act for and bind the state_ The burden of establishing the act and its character as an act of state is on the

Cook v. Smith

812 F. Supp. 561 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 10, 1993

Common Pleas Court of Lehigh County, 515 F.Supp. 1074, 1076 (E.D.Pa.1981), the court stated that a court reporter’s qualified immunity shields her from suit when she acts pursuant to “lawful authority or follows a judge’s … Defendant’s actions are clearly within her general subject matter jurisdiction and responsibilities as a court reporter.

Morlock v. West Central Education District

46 F. Supp. 2d 892 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Mar 29, 1999

The qualified immunity doctrine provides that a public official performing a discretionary function is immune from suit if his or her conduct does not violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights … Plaintiffs teacher against student harassment claim therefore alleges a violation of clearly established statutory rights to which qualified immunity does not apply.

Lewis v. Goodie

798 F. Supp. 382 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Jul 16, 1992

The affirmative defense of qualified immunity was not raised by the defendants in their pleadings, memoranda or at trial, and was, accordingly, waived. … defendant’s actions assessed in light of clearly established law. 483 U.S. at 639 , 107 S.Ct. at 3038 .

Kumar, ph.D. v. George Washington University

174 F. Supp. 3d 172 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2016

It is then the responsibility of the Provost to “determine whether to replace the challenged member with a qualified substitute.” Id. … This claim thus clearly fails as a matter of law. The claim of false light fails also. Kumar contends that “GW’s presentation of Dr.

Gross v. Bohn

782 F. Supp. 173 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 17, 1991

Qualified Immunity Defendant Morgan also argues that he is entitled to have the action dismissed based on qualified immunity. The United States Supreme Court set forth the standard for qualified immunity in Harlow v. … Vitale, 761 F.2d 812, 818 (1st Cir.1985) (stating firmly established principle of law that good faith defense of qualified immunity exists with respect to claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ).

Remillard Ex Rel. Estate of Remillard v. City of Egg Harbor City

424 F. Supp. 2d 766 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 27, 2006

established Fourth Amendment right. 6 As these same factual questions bear upon the issue of qualified immunity, the Court likewise cannot now decide that question of law because its determination hinges upon resolving highly … The qualified immunity inquiry requires the Court to evaluate whether the officers’ conduct violates "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Walton ex rel. R.W. v. Montgomery County Board of Education

371 F. Supp. 2d 1318 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · May 20, 2005

DeKalb County, Ga., 62 F.3d 338, 340 (11th Cir.1995)(“no clearly established right exists under the equal protection clause to be free from retaliation.”). … The individual Defendants in their individual capacities also would be entitled to qualified immunity because there is no clearly established law which would have given the Defendants fair warning that a school representative

Shivers v. Grubbs

747 F. Supp. 434 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 23, 1990

Inasmuch as the Court made no findings of fact, and its only conclusion of law, qualified immunity, was adequately addressed by the October 27, 1989 Order of this Court, we will restrict the review to that encompassed under … immunity.

Island Aviation, Inc. v. Mariana Islands Airport Authority

1 N. Mar. I. Commw. 633 · District Court, Northern Mariana Islands · May 26, 1983

Moreover, the Defendants argue that Shoda is shielded by common law immunity and qualified immunity. *640 II. ISSUES The facts as presented clearly frame the two critical issues which must be resolved by the Court. … Having failed to establish either reasonableness or good faith in defense *649 of his conduct, the Defendant Shoda cannot avail himself of the qualified immunity defense and thereby insulate his actions from liability under

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

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).