Case law

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.

Shaw v. COOSA COUNTY COM'N.

434 F. Supp. 2d 1179 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Oct 26, 2005

To be eligible for qualified immunity, the official must first establish that he was performing a "discretionary function" at the time the alleged violation of federal law occurred. … defendant violated was "clearly established" at the time he did it.

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.

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.

Kennedy v. City of Braham

67 F. Supp. 3d 1020 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Dec 12, 2014

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from [personal] liability and the burdens of litigation ... unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable … Accordingly, at this stage of the proceedings — -where Plaintiff has adequately alleged the violation of a clearly established statutory right — Chief Knowles is.not entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs DPPA claims

District Counsel 33, American Federation of State County & Municipal Employees v. City of Philadelphia

944 F. Supp. 392 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 25, 1995

of lists of qualified candidates to be used to fill vacancies, 351 Pa.Code § 7.7-401(f). … Clearly, Plaintiffs’ unilateral belief that they were qualified and entitled to the promotions is insufficient to establish a constitutionally protected property interest in the promotions. 2 .

American Humanist Ass'n v. City of Ocala

127 F. Supp. 3d 1265 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Aug 31, 2015

qualified immunity analysis for the individual defendants. … Qualified immunity offers complete protection for individual government officials performing discretionary functions “insofar, as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Wellmaker v. Dahill

836 F. Supp. 1375 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Nov 5, 1993

Qualified Immunity. Defendants argue that, should the Court find that genuine issues of material fact do exist, summary judgment must nevertheless be granted in their favor on qualified 'immunity grounds. … A state official is entitled to qualified immunity if his allegedly unlawful conduct was objectively reasonable when considered in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time the challenged conduct

Boggs v. Krum Indep. Sch. Dist. & Jeromy Harpole

376 F. Supp. 3d 714 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Mar 21, 2019

This motion turns on whether Principal Harpole is entitled to "qualified immunity." … A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity unless he (1) "violated a statutory or constitutional right" (2) that "was 'clearly established' at the time of the challenged conduct." See Morgan v.

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

Shaheed v. City of N.Y.

287 F. Supp. 3d 438 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 2, 2018

At minimum, qualified immunity protects such a determination. See Cerrone , 246 F.3d at 202 -03 . Accordingly, on any theory of false arrest or false imprisonment, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity. … These principles apply with equal force in the qualified immunity context. See, e.g., Betts , 751 F.3d at 82-83 (qualified immunity on false arrest yielded qualified immunity on malicious prosecution); Pinter v.

Taylor v. Davidson County Sheriff's Office

District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Jun 13, 2022

entitlement to qualified immunity. … clearly established rights.

Flores v. Von Kleist

739 F. Supp. 2d 1236 · District Court, E.D. California · Sep 10, 2010

To defeat a claim of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that the law was clearly established at the time of the violation of the plaintiffs statutory or constitutional rights, such that a reasonably competent public … Determining whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity requires a two-part inquiry: (1) Was the law governing the state official’s conduct clearly established?

Corwin v. NYC Bike Share, LLC

238 F. Supp. 3d 475 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 1, 2017

Qualified Immunity A. … governmental function for which it is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.

Booker v. Murphy

953 F. Supp. 756 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Feb 6, 1997

Defendants also assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity in their individual capacities. … a constitutional violation, the next step is to decide if the right was clearly established at the time the challenged conduct occurred and whether the defendant’s conduct was objectively reasonable.

Cameo Convalescent Center, Inc. v. Willkom

572 F. Supp. 1244 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Oct 21, 1983

Unquestionably then, Willkom has established sufficient impartiality in the process to allow him to avail himself of the *1251 immunity set forth in Butz. … Undisputed facts establish that Willkom qualifies for the absolute immunity granted to those responsible for the decisions to initiate or continue administrative proceedings in Butz.

XXL of Ohio, Inc. v. City of Broadview Heights

341 F. Supp. 2d 765 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 13, 2004

In other words, qualified immunity is appropriate either on the basis that the right allegedly violated was not at the time “clearly established,” or if “clearly established,” was one that a “reasonable” person in the defendant … A plaintiff faced with a defense of qualified immunity can overcome that defense only by showing that at the time of the alleged violation of plaintiffs rights the right in question was so clearly established that a reasonable

McMillan v. Healey

739 F. Supp. 153 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 21, 1990

State officials are immune from *158 suits for damages 6 alleging constitutional violations if it was not clearly established at the time of their acts that the interest asserted by the plaintiff was a protected one, or if … it was objectively reasonable for the officials to believe that their acts did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.