Case law

Pisello v. Town of Brookhaven

933 F. Supp. 202 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 10, 1996

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity “public officials are immune from § 1983 civil rights suits brought by an aggrieved citizen when their ‘conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Even if the right is clearly established, a defendant may still be entitled to qualified immunity where it was objectively reasonable for the official to believe that his acts did not violate that right. Jemmott v.

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.

Whitman v. Mineta

382 F. Supp. 2d 1130 · District Court, D. Alaska · Jul 13, 2005

Circuit Court found an implied waiver, as the language of § 633a clearly does not contain an express waiver. … Under the McDonnell Douglas framework, a plaintiff alleging disparate treatment under the ADEA establishes a prima facie case by showing that: (1) he belongs to a protected class; (2) he was qualified for the position; (3

Wilson v. City of New York

800 F. Supp. 1098 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 4, 1992

Clifford’s Defense of Qualified Immunity. … The record fails to establish that Clifford is entitled to qualified immunity. III. In addition to stating claims under section 1983, the complaint invokes 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 , 1986.

Smith v. Houston Independent School District

229 F. Supp. 3d 571 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jan 17, 2017

Moreno, 667 F.3d 539, 551 (5th Cir. 2012); and (3) the HISD employees have qualified immunity from suit because “their conduct does not violate clear *580 ly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Tex. 2007) (dismissing RICO claim against individual defendant under qualified immunity) (citing Brown v. Nationsbank Corp., 188 F.3d 579, 588 (5th Cir. 1999)). Mr.

LaFlamme v. Societe Air France

702 F. Supp. 2d 136 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 5, 2010

Further, the Second Circuit has noted that it has allowed a qualified immunity defense to be "successfully asserted in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion on at least two occasions" where "the complaint itself established the circumstances … required as a predicate to a finding of qualified immunity."

Gilles v. Alley

591 F. Supp. 181 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jun 12, 1984

If the law at the time of an official’s action “was not clearly established,” then the action should proceed no further. Id. If it was clearly established, then the qualified immunity defense should fail. … Aside from the Pickering issue, this case presents one other difficulty that the Court finds sufficient by itself to establish defendant’s qualified immunity defense on this motion.

Doe v. United Social & Mental Health Services, Inc.

670 F. Supp. 1121 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Oct 9, 1987

Burke, 556 F.2d 231 (3d Cir.1977) (absolute immunity only for adjudicatory acts and qualified immunity for administrative acts); Wolfel v. … Sanborn, 666 F.2d 1005 (6th Cir.1981), vacated on other grounds, 458 U.S. 1102 , 102 S.Ct. 3476 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1363 (1982) (qualified immunity); Fowler v. Cross, 635 F.2d 476 (5th Cir.1981) (qualified immunity).

Bogosian v. Board of Education of Community Unit School District 200

73 F. Supp. 2d 949 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 29, 1999

Bogosian cannot establish the elements of an Illinois state tortious interference with contractual relations claim. … The defendants argue that the teachers’ statements were not tortious because they were protected by some (1) absolute or (2) qualified privilege or (3) the state Tort Immunity Act, and were in any event (4) admittedly true

Graham v. United States

528 F. Supp. 933 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 22, 1981

The Special Agent’s role in the events complained of appears to be investigative, and thus gives rise to only a qualified immunity. 2. … Qualified Immunity Defendants’ third immunity argument is that qualified immunity insulates the Special Agent from this lawsuit. The qualified-immunity defense, as propounded in Wood v.

Cockroft v. Moore

638 F. Supp. 2d 1024 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Jul 28, 2009

to the injury were clearly established at the time.” … Defendant’s qualified immunity protects him from having to go to trial, not just from damages. If he is qualified immune as I have found he is, plaintiff cannot obtain any remedy from him.

Ross v. United States

641 F. Supp. 368 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 25, 1986

Thus, to qualify for immunity, Mr. … Cf Hobson, supra, 737 F.2d at 20 (particularity in pleading required in civil rights complaints where defendant asserts qualified immunity). Plaintiffs’ theory with regard to Mr.

Garb v. Republic of Poland

207 F. Supp. 2d 16 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 24, 2002

Hoffman, 324 U.S. 30 , 65 S.Ct. 530 , 89 L.Ed. 729 (1945), firmly established *23 judicial deference to the executive branch as the basis for the doctrine of foreign sovereign immunity. … The denial of immunity to the Ministry of the Treasury of Poland under the circumstances here would clearly conflict with pre-FSIA law, which did not distinguish between a foreign state and its departments or ministries,

L.S. v. Peterson

District Court, S.D. Florida · Oct 25, 2019

qualified immunity should not apply because: (1) the officers violated a constitutional right; and (2) that right was clearly established at the time of the incident.” … “A right may be clearly established for qualified immunity purposes in one of three ways: (1) case law with indistinguishable facts clearly establishing the constitutional right; (2) a broad statement of principle

Elvis Presley Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Memphis

District Court, W.D. Tennessee · Jul 16, 2020

Defendant bears the burden of establishing one of these instances. United States v. … In reaching her decision, the Magistrate Judge relied on Cooey, which stated that, to establish a common interest arrangement, “the parties [must] clearly and specifically agree to

Peterson v. County of Nassau

995 F. Supp. 305 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 23, 1998

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The defendant asserts immunity from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense which, if proven, “shield[s] [government agents] from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Weir v. Nix

890 F. Supp. 769 · District Court, S.D. Iowa · May 25, 1995

Qualified Immunity The defendants plead qualified immunity as an affirmative defense. “The qualified immunity inquiry involves a two-step process.” Munz v. Michael, 28 F.3d 795, 799 (8th Cir.1994). … Weir must first establish violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Reeves v. Churchich

331 F. Supp. 2d 1347 · District Court, D. Utah · Sep 2, 2004

Qualified Immunity Defendants have properly raised the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. … “If the plaintiff fails to satisfy either part of the two-part inquiry, the court must grant the defendant qualified immunity.” Id. at 1186 .

Francis v. Marshall

684 F. Supp. 2d 897 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Feb 2, 2010

To determine whether qualified immunity applies, a court must decide whether (1) the facts that a plaintiff has alleged or shown make out a violation of a constitutional right and (2) the right at issue was “clearly established … Francis did not establish that Marshall violated any of his First Amendment rights and, consequently, he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Knighton v. City of Syracuse Fire Department

145 F. Supp. 2d 217 · District Court, N.D. New York · May 15, 2001

In addition, to prevail on the claim against Cummings in his individual capacity, the Court must find that qualified immunity does not apply. " 'The qualified immunity doctrine protects government officials from suits seeking … "A government actor performing a discretionary task is entitled to immunity from § 1983 suits if either ‘(a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant