Case law

Azeez v. Fairman

604 F. Supp. 357 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jan 22, 1985

The defendants are not entitled to official immunity in this case. The plaintiffs, to overcome a claim of qualified immunity, must show that their rights were clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct. … The reasonableness of the defendants’ conduct must be measured by reference to clearly established law. No *365 other circumstances are relevant to the issue of qualified immunity. Harlow v.

Fuller v. Carilion Clinic

382 F. Supp. 3d 475 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · May 21, 2019

However, a state actor sued in his or her individual capacity may be entitled to qualified immunity, which "shields [state] officials from liability for civil damages, provided that their conduct does not violate clearly … , the defense of qualified immunity must be raised in a timely fashion before the district court.'

Service Employees International Union v. County of Butler

306 F. Supp. 1080 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 3, 1969

Plaintiffs to establish jurisdiction under the Civil Rights Act must allege that defendants acted under color of law. … Davis, 396 F. *1084 2d 730 [8th Cir., 1968], Whether or not the qualified immunity of acts done in good faith can be asserted by these defendants as a defense is a factual matter that can only be resolved by a trial.

Kelly v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · May 31, 2019

Defendants argue that this claim should be dismissed because Officer Gaton is entitled to qualified immunity as it is not “clearly established” that the use of a 12 … Second, even if Officer Gaton’s use of force was objectively unreasonable, to overcome Officer Gaton’s qualified immunity, Plaintiff must still show that the right which was violated was clearly established at the time

Alexander v. State University of New York at Buffalo

932 F. Supp. 2d 437 · District Court, W.D. New York · Feb 27, 2013

To establish a prima facie violation of section 504, a plaintiff must prove that: 1) he or she is a “handicapped person” as defined in the Rehabilitation Act; 2) he or she is “otherwise qualified” to participate in the offered … ANALYSIS Sovereign Immunity Defendant’s first argument is that Plaintiffs ADA claims are barred by sovereign immunity. Defendant recognizes the holding in United States v.

Reynolds v. County of San Diego

858 F. Supp. 1064 · District Court, S.D. California · Jul 14, 1994

of clearly established law and the information the officers possessed. … Just as the officer in Rivera was entitled to immunity, Jackson is entitled to immunity. As previously established, Jackson’s actions were objectively reasonable.

DiJoseph v. City of Philadelphia

947 F. Supp. 834 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 22, 1996

The next step is determining whether the alleged conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … I hold that qualified immunity applies to this ease, and therefore will grant summary judgment on this claim. 2.

Cowgill v. City of Marion

127 F. Supp. 2d 1047 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 28, 2000

“Qualified immunity shields the officers from suit ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Sledd v. … and (2) Were the constitutional standards clearly established at the time in question?” Kernats v. O’Sullivan, 35 F.3d 1171, 1176 (7th Cir.1994).

Lewis v. McDade

54 F. Supp. 2d 1332 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Jul 13, 1999

Qualified Immunity Defendant McDade objects to the Magistrate Judge’s denying him qualified immunity. First, Defendant McDade argues that he did not violate any of Plaintiffs’ clearly established rights. … The Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff Heath had a clearly established right to be free from sex discrimination.

Willard v. City of Myrtle Beach, SC

728 F. Supp. 397 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Nov 22, 1989

from suit under principles of qualified immunity. … “clearly established” at the time it was taken.

Bulk Lift International, Inc. v. Flexcon & Systems, Inc.

122 F.R.D. 482 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Jun 13, 1988

Issues Raised In Motion to Quash Dorn argues that his subpoena and the related request for production of documents should be quashed on two grounds: attorney-client privilege and the qualified work-product immunity under … To the extent that these items request documents prepared by Dorn in anticipation of litigation involving the ’424 patent, these documents are protected under the qualified work-product immunity of Rule 26(b)(3).

Price v. Caruso

451 F. Supp. 2d 889 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Sep 8, 2006

Personal Capacity — Qualiñed Immunity In civil suits for money damages, government officials acting in their official capacity are entitled to qualified immunity for discretionary acts which do not violate clearly established … Whether the government official “is protected by qualified immunity turns on ‘the objective legal reasonableness’ of the action, assessed in the light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time the action

Ahanotu v. Massachusetts Turnpike Authority

466 F. Supp. 2d 378 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 8, 2006

Unless the plaintiffs allegations claim a violation of “clearly established” law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery. Id. … Immunity applies unless the facts establish that the alleged conduct violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation such that a reasonable officer would have known that the

Everson v. Lantz

453 F. Supp. 2d 578 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Sep 30, 2006

Qualified Immunity In the alternative, defendants argue that their actions are protected by qualified immunity. … In assessing a defense of qualified immunity, the relevant question is whether a reasonable officer in the defendant’s position could have believed the defendant’s actions lawful in light of clearly established law.

Sanchez v. Rowe

651 F. Supp. 571 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Nov 24, 1986

In a lawsuit for damages arising from violations of constitutional rights, federal law enforcement officers, like their state counterparts, may claim only qualified immunity. Butz v. … Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability where their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable man would have known. Harlow v.

In Re Series 7 Broker Qualification Exam Scoring Litigation

510 F. Supp. 2d 35 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 7, 2007

Here, plaintiffs argue that NASD’s and EDS’s activities would not qualify under the Butz factors for the type of official immunity applied to SROs in Austin and Barbara . … a registered broker-dealer are qualified to transact securities-related business with the public.

Dugger v. Stephen F. Austin State University

232 F. Supp. 3d 938 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Feb 6, 2017

Abrogation of Eleventh Amendment Immunity The Eleventh Amendment bars an individual from suing a State in federal court unless the State consents to suit or Congress has clearly and validly abrogated the State’s right not … As noted, it is well established that, absent an express waiver or an abrogation of the state’s sovereign immunity by Congress, a State may not be sued in a federal court.

Dr. Mark G. Turner, DDS, PC v. Va. Dep't of Med. Assistance Servs.

301 F. Supp. 3d 637 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Mar 19, 2018

Subsequently, the Court adopted a two-part test to better establish the boundaries of this immunity. See Cal. Retail Liquor Dealers Ass'n v. Midcal Aluminum , 445 U.S. 97 , 100 S.Ct. 937 , 63 L.Ed.2d 233 (1980). … The Court clarified in Midcal that "a challenged restraint" is only immune from suit if it is "clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed as state policy ...

Lock v. Jenkins

464 F. Supp. 541 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 27, 1978

While the Federal courts will intervene to protect clearly established constitutional rights, Little v. … The qualified immunity from liability for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 should be availing to all of the named defendants because the constitutional rights allegedly infringed by them were not clearly established at the

Smith v. Lanier

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 27, 2011

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The individually-named police officers will not be liable for damages if they are entitled to qualified immunity, which shields “government officials performing discretionary functions . . . … clearly established”4 at the time of the defendants’ alleged misconduct.