Case law

Barasky

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 18, 2025

Barasky avers that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because they acted unreasonably and violated his clearly established right not to be arrested or detained without probable cause. … Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official's conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. Montanez v.

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

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____”).

Thomas v. Northern

574 F. Supp. 2d 1029 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Aug 5, 2008

DISCUSSION "Qualified immunity protects state actors from civil liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … To determine whether a state actor is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court must resolve two questions: first, whether the official deprived plaintiff of a constitutional right, and second, whether that right was so clearly

Jones v. Westchester County

182 F. Supp. 3d 134 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 30, 2016

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that the individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. (Defs.’ Mem. 20.) … Jan. 27, 2016) (“The claim may not be. dismissed on qualified immunity grounds because [the plaintiff] sufficiently alleged a claim of excessive force and the right to be free from excessive force is clearly established,”

Skidmore v. Access Group, Inc.

149 F. Supp. 3d 807 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Dec 4, 2015

Berns, 801 S.W.2d 327 (1990), that “municipal corporations” do not qualify for sovereign immunity. Id. at 331-32 . … This work is clearly of legitimate state concern. United States ex rel. Oberg, 745 F.3d at 140 (brackets omitted).

Tomlins v. Village of Wappinger Falls Zoning Board of Appeals

812 F. Supp. 2d 357 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 8, 2011

In order to qualify, “[t]he proponent of a claim to absolute immunity bears the burden of establishing the justification for such immunity.” Antoine v. … This conduct clearly is protected by the First Amendment”). 21 .

Shepherd v. Ault

982 F. Supp. 643 · District Court, N.D. Iowa · Nov 12, 1997

they were entitled to qualified immunity. … Furthermore, because qualified immunity stands as a bar only to compensatory relief, even if the magistrate judge finds, and this court upholds, qualified immunity, the inmates’ claim for injunctive relief would still be

Sweeney v. Athens Regional Medical Center

705 F. Supp. 1556 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Feb 3, 1989

The court went on to state that to be entitled to state action immunity, a municipality need only show that it acted pursuant to a clearly articulated state policy. Id. … Even assuming that ARMC was acting pursuant to a clearly established policy or custom that had been adopted and promulgated by a final decision-maker at the time it denied Ms.

Mathis v. McInnis

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Dec 26, 2023

entitled to qualified immunity.” … When determining whether an individual’s rights are clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity, “[t]he sources of clearly established law to be considered are limited.

Niemann v. Whalen

911 F. Supp. 656 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 2, 1996

Qualified Immunity Defendant Whalen also seeks summary judgment on the ground of quali- *673 fled immunity. … Police officers, like other public officials, “are immune from § 1983 civil rights suits ... when their ‘conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Jerome Stevens Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Food & Drug Administration

319 F. Supp. 2d 45 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 28, 2004

First, the act of extending the deadlines clearly involves “an element of judgment or choice.” Macharía, 334 F.3d at 65 . … Moreover, the decision as to when and whether to take enforcement action against unapproved drugs qualifies as discretionary.

Raffety v. Prince George's County

423 F. Supp. 1045 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 1, 1976

“Common-law tradition, recognized in our prior decisions, and strong public-policy reasons also lead to a construction of § 1983 extending a qualified good-faith immunity to school board members from liability for damages … Appellees did assert 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as an alternative ground of jurisdiction, but I agree with the Court’s conclusion that existence of the requisite amount in controversy is not, on this record, clearly established.

Gonzalez v. Leonard

497 F. Supp. 1058 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Aug 28, 1980

In the case of defendant Money, his qualified immunity under the doctrine of Butz v. … The test for qualified immunity made applicable to constitutional claims against federal officers by Butz v.

Walker v. Prisoner Review Board

594 F. Supp. 556 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 27, 1984

However, in Fatico the court explained that a parolee’s complaint must clearly establish that the erroneous information was in fact relied upon; otherwise, the reviewing court may only consider whether the parole candidate … On a motion for summary judgment, of course, the moving party has the burden of clearly establishing that "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and [therefore he] is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

Reavis v. Metropolitan Property & Liability Insurance

117 F.R.D. 160 · District Court, S.D. California · Aug 7, 1987

Therefore, this Court concludes that all the documents sought to be produced have a qualified immunity under the work-product doctrine. … In the particular circumstances of this case Reavis has made a sufficient showing of substantial need and undue hardship to overcome the qualified immunity from dis- *164 covery for non-mental impression work product.

Assaad-Faltas v. University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences

708 F. Supp. 1026 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 1, 1989

Thus, even if the allegations of the complaint are taken as true, defendants are entitled to the defense of qualified immunity from damages. … , sovereign immunity under the Arkansas Constitution and law, and qualified “good faith” immunity. (3) All defamation claims and breach of privacy claims are dismissed as true statements or privileged comments. (4) Claims

Powers-Bunce v. District of Columbia

479 F. Supp. 2d 146 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 28, 2007

Indeed, the assertion of a qualified immunity defense significantly changes and complicates the analysis that the Court must perform in the context of these motions to dismiss. … Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 306 , 116 S.Ct. 834 , 133 L.Ed.2d 773 (1996) (“Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal

Ruscavage v. Zuratt

821 F. Supp. 1078 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 30, 1993

Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to immunity from damages for civil rights violations “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity from damages because he acted in bad faith to retaliate against Plaintiff. *1084 D.

Ileto v. Glock, Inc.

421 F. Supp. 2d 1274 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 14, 2006

The PLCAA provides immunity to firearms manufacturers and dealers from any lawsuit, pending or otherwise, fitting the Act’s definition of a “qualified civil liability action.” Id. §§ 7902-03. … Indeed, the Court devoted a very considerable amount of time and energy to determining whether, in fact, this case fell within the predicate exception to the PLCAA’s definition of a "qualified civil immunity action.”