Case law

Swales v. Township of Ravenna

989 F. Supp. 925 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 20, 1997

A state official is entitled to qualified immunity when his conduct was objectively reasonable in light of clearly established rules and the information then possessed by the official. Id. (citing Anderson v. … Tishomingo County, 962 F.2d 501, 510 (5th Cir.1992) (When facts relied on to establish probable cause for arrest were in dispute, “[w]hether or not [defendant could] claim qualified immunity from [plaintiff’s] Fourth Amendment

Amaram v. Virginia State University

476 F. Supp. 2d 535 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Feb 20, 2007

Olusoga would need “at least two or three journal articles and from five to seven conference papers by the end of [that] academic year to be deemed Academically Qualified.” At about the same time, Dr. … Together, these principles preserve the integrity of state sovereign immunity within our federal structure and establish the proposition that federal courts will not countenance those actions in the exercise of their diversity

Kissinger v. Fort Wayne Cmty. Sch.

293 F. Supp. 3d 796 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 26, 2018

Qualified Immunity for the Individual Defendants Whether government officials enjoy qualified immunity involves a two-part inquiry. … Bryan , 523 F.3d 789 , 802 (7th Cir. 2008) (a plaintiff seeking to defeat an assertion of qualified immunity must establish "that the law concerning the plaintiff's asserted right was clearly established at the time the challenged

Dick v. Watonwan County

562 F. Supp. 1083 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Apr 11, 1983

In its answer to question 4.A. on qualified immunity, the jury found that Schutt had acted in good faith. … Qualified immunity. The individual defendants contend that the Court erred in not granting their motion for a directed verdict based on their defense of qualified immunity. This argument is without merit.

Summe v. KENTON COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE

626 F. Supp. 2d 680 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Jun 16, 2009

Eldridge entitled to qualified immunity on Summe’s § 1983 claim. … Qualified immunity provides that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate *688 clearly established statutory

Truss v. Collier

574 F. Supp. 1249 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 8, 1983

identified as unlawful____ If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct. … Herein the fleeing felon rule was clearly established law, in effect at the time of the shooting incident, and has been declared to be constitutional.

Richardson v. Miles

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 21, 2025

Government officials like the Cook County correctional officers here are protected by qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … right; and [2] whether the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the officer’s alleged misconduct.”

Marino v. City University of New York

18 F. Supp. 3d 320 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 9, 2014

Although the Eleventh Amendment does not explicitly bar suits against a state by its own citizens, it is well established that a non-consenting state is immune from suits brought by its own citizens in federal court. … (“[Ajfter Garrett , New York’s continued acceptance of federal funds necessarily constituted a valid waiver of sovereign immunity because New York could no longer rely on a belief that Title II clearly constituted a valid

Brossette v. City of Baton Rouge

837 F. Supp. 759 · District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Oct 14, 1993

Defendants then filed a motion for summary judgement based on two grounds: (1) they are entitled to absolute or qualified immunity and, (2) Bros-sette’s claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 has prescribed. … This claim is clearly prescribed. Additionally, a review of the Board’s structure reveals that the Board and its individual members are entitled to absolute judicial immunity.

Hawthorne-Burdine v. Oakland University

158 F. Supp. 3d 586 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jan 27, 2016

A frivolous complaint may be “based on an indisputably meritless legal theory,” rest on “clearly baseless” factual contentions, rely on “claims of infringement of a legal interest which clearly does not exist,” or describe … To qualify under the Ex parte Young exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity, the relief sought should be prospective in nature, seeking merely to compel a state officer’s compliance with federal law in the future.

Doe v. Dolton Elementary School District No. 148

694 F. Supp. 440 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 23, 1988

Once a person’s immune system is weakened, he is susceptible to diseases which uninfected persons’ immune systems can easily fight off. Such diseases are labeled “opportunistic infections.” … Id. at 710 ; see also Ray, 666 F.Supp. at 1535 (“actual, ongoing injury to Plaintiffs ... clearly outweighs the potential harm to others____”).

Sherez v. State of Hawai'i Department of Education

396 F. Supp. 2d 1138 · District Court, D. Hawaii · Sep 1, 2005

Judgment on the pleadings is proper when the moving party clearly establishes on the face of the pleadings that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. … The court clearly contemplated that the two defendants, both the inciter and the actual decision-maker, could be held individually liable.

Saffold v. City of Calumet Park

47 F. Supp. 2d 927 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 30, 1999

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), a public official is entitled to qualified immunity as long as "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … In this case, there can be no doubt that Saffold had a clearly established constitutional right to be free from arrest without probable cause.

Slack v. County of Suffolk

50 F. Supp. 3d 254 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 20, 2014

However, “[t]he burden of raising and establishing the affirmative defense of qualified immunity ... rests on the [Defendants.” Sabir v. Jowett, 214 F.Supp.2d 226, 240 (D.Conn.2002) (citing Lee v. … existed here, there can be no qualified immunity.

Thomas v. Adams

55 F. Supp. 3d 552 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 20, 2014

Qualifíed Immunity The test governing the defense of qualified immunity is long-established: “Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional … right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.”

Cyprus v. Diskin

936 F. Supp. 259 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 27, 1996

Qualified Immunity The defendants assert that they have qualified immunity for their acts in arresting Cyprus. … A state official is immune to damage claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if a reasonable official in his position could have believed that his action or decision was lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information

Gibson v. County of Riverside

181 F. Supp. 2d 1057 · District Court, C.D. California · Jan 4, 2002

Unlike sections 818.2 and 821, which provide an absolute immunity, sections 820.4 and 820.6 provide a qualified immunity available in many circumstances but unavailable where the defendant public employee failed to use due … As the Court's analysis will make clear, sections 51 and 52 of the Unruh Act, when read together, clearly make such conduct actionable even though the individual or entity denying others access to a "business establishment

TIMMY S. v. Stumbo

537 F. Supp. 39 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Sep 15, 1981

SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY The defendants contend that this action is barred because they enjoy sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. … In their individual capacities, state officials enjoy a qualified “good faith” immunity from damage liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . Scheuer v. Rhodes, supra 416 U.S. at 247-248 , 94 S.Ct. at 1691-1692 .

Smith v. Scottsdale Insurance

40 F. Supp. 3d 704 · District Court, N.D. West Virginia · May 16, 2014

Moulinage et Retorderie de Chavanoz, 487 F.2d 480, 484 (4th Cir.1973) (holding that “upon the termination of litigation the work product documents prepared incident thereto [do not] lose the qualified immunity extended to … Clearly then, they cannot establish substantial need and inability to otherwise obtain the information.

Martin v. United States

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 27, 2025

The FTCA also does not waive the United States’ sovereign immunity as to Count Four. To establish jurisdiction under the FTCA, a plaintiff must “demonstrate that the claim asserted is the kind permitted by statute.” … Nor does Martin identify any new statutes that clearly waive the United States’ sovereign immunity for Counts Four and Five. For example, he cites 28 U.S.C. § 612.