Case law

Gilliam v. Quinlan

608 F. Supp. 823 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 25, 1985

McGill, the woman he allegedly threatened; and WHEREAS the Magistrate recommended, however, that these claims be dismissed on the ground of defendants’ qualified or good faith immunity; and WHEREAS the defense of qualified … Even though plaintiff’s constitutional challenge cannot be dismissed at this stage on the merits, it may be dismissed on grounds of qualified immunity if defendants can show that “their conduct does not violate clearly established

Firebird Global Master Fund II Ltd. v. Republic of Nauru

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 15, 2013

Generally, with regard to express waivers under this provision, “[a] foreign sovereign will not be found to have waived its immunity unless it has clearly and unambiguously done so.” World Wide Minerals, Ltd. v. … Similarly, in this case, Nauru  - 8 - issuing bonds qualifies as a commercial activity.

Akers v. Watts

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 24, 2010

Qualified Immunity “[G]overnment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Because qualified immunity is “an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability, . . . it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial.” Mitchell v.

Ammend v. BioPort, Inc.

322 F. Supp. 2d 848 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Mar 31, 2004

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 … Myers has qualified immunity to those claims. (b) State Law Claims Dr.

Williams v. Vidmar

367 F. Supp. 2d 1265 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 28, 2005

and if so, then determine “whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” … Therefore, Defendants’ motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity is denied. F.

Scozzari v. City of Clare

723 F. Supp. 2d 974 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jun 29, 2010

The Court previously denied the Officers qualified immunity and summary judgment as to those claims. … However, the parties did not address whether there are material differences between the standard for qualified immunity under federal law and the *978 standard for governmental immunity under Michigan law.

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.

Smith v. Private Industry Council of Westmoreland & Fayette Counties, Inc.

622 F. Supp. 160 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 4, 1985

(“[T]he Thirteenth Amendment is not a mere prohibition of state laws establishing or upholding slavery, but an absolute declaration that slavery or involuntary servitude shall not exist in any part of the United States.”) … The Complaint clearly distinguishes between federal rights asserted under § 1985(3) and those rights accorded under Title VII.

Grimaldo v. Reno

189 F.R.D. 617 · District Court, D. Colorado · Nov 24, 1999

Their alleged qualified immunity argument, Defendants further contend, triggered a heightened pleading requirement. … While Defendants are correct that a heightened pleading requirement is triggered by a qualified immunity defense, see Breidenbach v.

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).

Harder v. Village of Forest Park

466 F. Supp. 2d 1000 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 9, 2006

Finally, Cody argues that she is entitled to qualified immunity. … In Hildebrandt the Seventh Circuit set forth the methodology for determining qualified immunity. Following the Supreme Court’s guidance in Saucier v.

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.

Oliver v. University of Connecticut Health Care

292 F. Supp. 2d 398 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Dec 1, 2003

Gen.Stat. § 46a-100 3 , Connecticut waived its immunity for suit in state court for CFEPA claims. But it has not clearly expressed a waiver to suit in federal court. … Cutler enjoys qualified immunity from suit. Accordingly, the court grants the defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to Count Three and Count Four. IV.

Wilson v. Brock

2002 DNH 137 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Jul 18, 2002

Shalala, in her individual capacity, is entitled to qualified immunity if the right alleged by Wilson was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. See, e.g., Wilson, 526 U.S. at 609. … Even if there were such a violation, however, it was not clearly established, and Shalala is entitled to qualified immunity.

Kumar v. Chicago Housing Authority

862 F. Supp. 213 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 25, 1994

A staté official is immune from civil damages if *216 his or her actions are “objectively reasonable,”, i.e., if his or her conduct “ ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Qualified immunity shields the arresting officer from suit if “a reasonable officer could have believed [the plaintiffs arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting] officers

Blue Ridge Investments, LLC v. Republic of Argentina

902 F. Supp. 2d 367 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 30, 2012

Int’l Nominees Establishment v. Republic of Guinea (“MINE”), 693 F.2d 1094 (D.C.Cir.1982) is misplaced. … Because of this qualifying language, it is clear that the remaining references in Article 25 to “the parties” refer to “the parties to the dispute.”

Nguyen v. Louisiana State Board of Cosmetology

227 F. Supp. 3d 615 · District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Dec 16, 2016

DISCUSSION Cangelosi raises the defenses of absolute immunity and qualified immunity. … QUALIFIED IMMUNITY “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

Ratajack v. Brewster Fire Department, Inc.

178 F. Supp. 3d 118 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 31, 2016

Qualified Immunity for Jacobs, Goodwin, and Klosowski Defendants also argue that Jacobs, Goodwin, and Klosowski are immune from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity. 24 Qualified immunity “gives government officials … A government official will be protected from liability for his discretionary actions by the doctrine of qualified immunity “if either (1) his conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Shellburne, Inc. v. New Castle County

293 F. Supp. 237 · District Court, D. Delaware · Nov 4, 1968

. 8 Despite this qualified immunity for defamation, the law generally gives members of lower legislative bodies, including those of Delaware, the same absolute immunity for legislative actions as have national and state legislators … There the Court held that a county prosecutor was immune from liability under § 1983 of the Civil Rights Act unless he was acting clearly outside his jurisdiction.

Raimondo v. Village of Armada

197 F. Supp. 2d 833 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 26, 2002

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity where their actions do not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Greene v. … The parties raising qualified immunity may file dispositive motions based on that defense at the first instance after they have taken discovery on the qualified immunity defense.