Case law

Burnham v. Ianni

899 F. Supp. 395 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Mar 17, 1995

Defendant asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity from liability in money damages in his individual capacity because his actions did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have … The only relevant question in the determination of whether Ianni is entitled to qualified immunity is whether, objectively viewed, the public official would have believed that his acts violated clearly established law.

House v. Nelson

210 F. Supp. 2d 993 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 10, 2002

Defendant Nelson moves to dismiss on the ground of qualified immunity, claiming that his conduct did not violate clearly-established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Rather, the issue is whether or not it is clearly established that a Department of *994 Corrections investigator could not constitutionally require a parolee to take a lie detector test.

Woods v. City of Utica

902 F. Supp. 2d 273 · District Court, N.D. New York · Nov 5, 2012

The County defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity, which protects state actors from liability if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … The County defendants will not be granted qualified immunity because “a pretrial detainee’s right not to be recklessly denied treatment for a serious medical condition was ‘clearly established’ at the time these events transpired

Younger v. Reed

495 F. Supp. 68 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · May 30, 1980

Once the defendants’ qualified immunity is established as a matter of law, it is the plaintiff’s burden to present proof which will prevent that immunity from operating as a complete bar to his cause of action. … The defendants have shown that there are no genuine issues of fact regarding their qualified immunity defense.

Stevens v. Gooch

48 F. Supp. 3d 992 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Sep 30, 2014

“Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for civil damages if their conduct does not violate ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Martin … If either prong is not satisfied, meaning either there is no violation of a constitutional right or the right at issue was not clearly established, the official is entitled to qualified immunity.

Locurto v. Giuliani

95 F. Supp. 2d 161 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 27, 2000

An individual defendant sued for damages under § 1983 may be entitled to qualified immunity if it was objectively reasonable for him to conclude that his actions did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. … Since it was clearly established at the time the events in the instant action took place that before taking an adverse employment action a government employer was required to provide an employee with a hearing that comported

Giano v. Kelly

869 F. Supp. 143 · District Court, W.D. New York · Nov 16, 1994

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that even if this court found the review process unconstitutional, they are entitled to qualified immunity. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields state officials from liability where they did not violate ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Wright, 21 F.3d

Weaks v. North Carolina Department of Transportation

761 F. Supp. 2d 289 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jan 25, 2011

Div. of Motor Vehicles, 166 F.3d 698 , 705 (4th Cir.1999) (noting that DMV, “as a department of the state, is immune from suit unless Congress has abrogated that immunity”); Bennett v. N.C. … Technologies Applications & Service Co., 80 F.3d 954, 960 (4th Cir.1996), that a plaintiff “must establish that she was the better qualified candidate for the position sought.” ...

Baker v. Runyon

922 F. Supp. 1296 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 1, 1996

It *1299 is, in fact, “an independent establishment of the Executive Branch of the government of the United States ...” 39 U.S.C. § 201 . … Beyond these citations, and its own tautologous recitations, the defendant offers little to show that the Postal Service qualifies as “a government, government agency or political subdivision.”

Bell v. Township of Concord

759 F. Supp. 2d 621 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 10, 2011

“[QJualified 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 would have … "Second, if the plaintiff has satisfied this first step, the court must decide whether the right at issue was 'clearly established’ at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.”

Wilson v. Wilson

416 F. Supp. 984 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 28, 1976

He has no intention to establish full-time residence in Oregon. In 1974 and 1975, plaintiff applied for admission to the Oregon bar. … However, it is not clear that the present statute grants absolute immunity. For example, the statute excepts from its grant of immunity one who commits perjury.

VanZandt v. Fish and Wildlife Service

524 F. Supp. 2d 239 · District Court, W.D. New York · Nov 29, 2007

Qualified Immunity In her argument for summary judgment, Kiley asserts that she is entitled to qualified immunity. Relying on Rapkin v. … Certainly she cannot contend that conversion is a reasonable action entitled to qualified immunity.

Marriott v. County of Montgomery

227 F.R.D. 159 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 25, 2005

Moreover, the individual defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because it is clearly established that “indiscriminate strip searches” are unconstitutional. … Further, qualified immunity is not appropriate where, as here, there was a clearly established right to be free from a strip search in the absence of reasonable suspicion.

Caldwell v. Hammonds

53 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 1999

Qualified immunity Qualified immunity protects an official from suits for damages in the performance of discretionary duties unless the official “ ‘knew or reasonably should have known that the action he took within his sphere … A transfer for such a reason would violate clearly established constitutional law, as the Defendants knew or should have known.

Jacobs v. Village of Ottawa Hills

159 F. Supp. 2d 693 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 24, 2001

Also, I found that Officers Miller and Knallay were not entitled to qualified immunity. (Id. at 16-19). Defendants appealed the denials of qualified immunity to the Sixth Circuit. … Unlike qualified immunity under federal law, the Ohio statutory immunity requires a certain state of mind.

Hagemann v. Molinari

14 F. Supp. 2d 277 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 6, 1998

A government employer is entitled to qualified immunity for violations of the First Amendment if the employer did not act in violation of a “clearly established” right. See Hickey-McAllister, 978 F.Supp. at 136 . … “For purposes of qualified immunity, a right is ‘clearly established’ if it is defined with reasonable clarity; if the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has affirmed its existence; or if a reasonable

Bennett v. City of Slidell

518 F. Supp. 59 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Apr 3, 1981

Navaretta, 434 U.S. 555, 561 , 98 S.Ct. 855, 859 , 55 L.Ed.2d 24 , relied upon by the defendants as the basis for their claim to “absolute” immunity is inapposite, inasmuch as it speaks to “qualified” immunity only. … Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 , 94 S.Ct. 1683 , 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974) (officers of the executive branch are to receive qualified immunity for acts of official conduct). Judgment will be entered accordingly.

Manzi v. DiCarlo

982 F. Supp. 125 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 5, 1997

Moreover, the decisions involved would not otherwise qualify as legislative acts entitled to immunity.’ … In this case, the discovery and trial needs of plaintiff in enforcing her rights under federal law clearly outweigh the State Defendants’ need for confidentiality.

Andre v. Castor

963 F. Supp. 1158 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 27, 1997

Andre responds that this allegation is sufficient, even under a heightened standard, because it puts these defendants on notice that they assisted conduct alleged to be in violation of clearly established constitutional law … Qualified Immunity. As to this key issue, the Court has reviewed the arguments of counsel, both oral and written, and the relevant case law.

Rivera v. Guevara

319 F. Supp. 3d 1004 · District Court, E.D. Illinois · May 11, 2018

was "clearly established at the time." … For qualified immunity purposes, "[t]he dispositive question is whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established."