Case law

McQueen v. Shelby County

730 F. Supp. 1449 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Feb 13, 1990

Nevertheless, the rule is also well established that the mere existence of some factual dispute will not frustrate an otherwise proper summary judgment. Anderson v. … If CCMHC is considered to be a “local public entity” within the meaning of the Tort Immunity Act, then the allegations of the Shelby County Defendants fall clearly within 116-105 of the act which provides neither a local

Minor v. Cumberland Township

258 F. Supp. 3d 518 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 27, 2017

Qualified Immunity The Officer Defendants assert qualified immunity as & defense as to all of Plaintiffs’ Section 1983 claims. (Doc. 62) at 24. … If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.

Felak v. United States

661 F. Supp. 51 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Jun 1, 1987

Motion for protective order The United States moved for a protective order preventing discovery from it or the individual defendants until a determination of qualified immunity is made. … Defendant’s motion for a protective order preventing discovery from government officials until resolution of the threshold qualified immunity issue is GRANTED.

M.B. v. Schuylkill Cnty.

375 F. Supp. 3d 574 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 21, 2019

Hoke is insulated by qualified immunity. … "To resolve a claim of qualified immunity, courts engage in a two-pronged inquiry: (1) whether the plaintiff sufficiently alleged the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was 'clearly established

School Board of the Parish of St. Charles v. Quala Systems, Inc.

159 F. Supp. 2d 295 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Mar 30, 2001

Defendant argues that, under Supreme Court jurisprudence, the Tax Injunction Act is clearly inapplicable to the facts of this matter. … As to the Eleventh Amendment argument, it points out that plaintiffs, as political subdivisions, do not qualify as the state for purposes of the Eleventh Amendment.

Gustavo Rodriguez v. Kirstjen Nielsen

District Court, C.D. California · May 26, 2020

App’x 53, 54 (9th Cir. 2007). 16 A litigant must meet two criteria to qualify as a “prevailing party” under the 17 EAJA. Buckhannon Bd. and Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. … Marolf, 277 F.3d 1156, 1163–64 21 (9th Cir. 2002) (“A reasonable litigation position does not establish substantial 22 justification in the face of a clearly unjustified underlying action.”)

WEREB v. Maui County

727 F. Supp. 2d 898 · District Court, D. Hawaii · Jul 28, 2010

The defense of qualified immunity “shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The defense of qualified immunity requires a two-part analysis.

Guglielmoni v. Alexander

583 F. Supp. 821 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 23, 1984

The Qualified Immunity and Supervisory Responsibility Claim Defendants have further contended that any § 1983 liability is precluded by the qualified immunity standard of Procunier v. … The standard of Estelle , applicable here as discussed above, was clearly established at the times in question.

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.

Golden v. State Board of Law Examiners

452 F. Supp. 1082 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 30, 1978

The State clearly has a legitimate interest in this area and may adopt reasonable requirements to further that interest. … Privileges and Immunities The article IV privileges and immunities clause (U.S.Const. art.

Snegirev v. Sedwick

407 F. Supp. 2d 1093 · District Court, D. Alaska · Jan 5, 2006

Snegirev argues that judicial immunity does not apply because the rulings about which he complains violate clearly established law. … By contrast, judicial immunity is absolute and extends to rulings that conflict with clearly established law. Snegirev’s claims based on adverse rulings are foreclosed by decisions of the United States Supreme Court.

Ortiz v. Town of Cicero, Illinois

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 11, 2022

Indianapolis Fire Dept., 578 F.3d 559, 566 (7th Cir. 2009) (recognizing a “‘qualified’ constitutional right to the confidentiality of medical records and communications”). … Dunlap, 209 F.3d 944, 956 (7th Cir. 2000) (“[T]his Circuit has outlined a clearly established ‘substantial’ right in the confidentiality of medical information that can only be overcome by a sufficiently strong state interest

Bane v. Virginia Department of Corrections

267 F. Supp. 2d 514 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Jun 6, 2003

Ill To establish a violation of the Rehabilitation Act, a plaintiff must prove that he or she: (1) is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) is otherwise qualified for the benefit of programs, services, or activities … The law is clearly established that a prison official’s deliberate disregard of the serious medical needs of an inmate is a violation of the inmate’s constitutional rights. See Estelle v.

Albright v. City of Peekskill

District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 14, 2025

finds that the Police Officers are protected by qualified immunity. … Where probable cause is absent, “an arresting officer is still entitled to qualified immunity if he can establish that there was ‘arguable probable cause.’” Wheeler v.

BARNHOUSE v. CITY OF MUNCIE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 4, 2020

Concerning qualified immunity, Barnhouse argues that, in 1992, it was clearly established that identification procedures violate due process if they are unduly suggestive—see Manson v. … established," so qualified immunity would protect the defendant from such a claim.

Slusarchuk v. Hoff

228 F. Supp. 2d 1007 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Oct 31, 2002

Qualified Immunity Defendants have raised the defense of qualified immunity. … , and if so, whether that right was clearly established at the time of the events in question.

Gatter v. Zappile

67 F. Supp. 2d 515 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 7, 1999

Although not raised by the defendants, Dan-bach and Williamson have the additional defense of qualified immunity. … Police officers and other government officials have qualified immunity from suit under section 1983 so long as " ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Ahlers v. Schebil

994 F. Supp. 856 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Feb 18, 1998

Thereafter, the Washtenaw County Defendants moved for summary judgment on the qualified immunity issue and on the state tort claims. … established constitutional right of which objectively reasonable officers know, for purposes of determining Washtenaw County Defendants’ qualified immunity; (5) sheriff would not be dismissed from Ahlers’ state law tort

Butler v. Deputy Jeffers

District Court, D. Nebraska · Mar 14, 2025

Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has clearly established that an officer “executing an arrest warrant is not required by the Constitution to investigate independently every claim of innocence, whether the claim is … Pa. 1982) (“[T]he law is ‘clearly established’ that law enforcement officers who effect an arrest pursuant to a facially valid arrest warrant are immune from suit alleging a constitutional deprivation.”).

Selzer v. Berkowitz

459 F. Supp. 347 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 27, 1978

Such a class, defendants claim, is not clearly enough defined for purposes of Section 1985(3) coverage. … While Griffin quite clearly established that Section 1985(3) extends to purely private conspiracies, the Court’s requirement, as noted above, of a racial or otherwise class-based invidiously discriminatory animus as part