Case law

Ingenito v. Department of Corrections

568 F. Supp. 946 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 19, 1983

In their brief, they only discuss the affirmative defense of “qualified” immunity. Defendants’ Brief at 20-22. … The court assumes the individual defendants are not relying upon any other kind of immunity defense. 6 Before reaching the question of the individual’s qualified immunity, the court must address the issue of the State of

Snyder v. City of Alexandria

870 F. Supp. 672 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Nov 30, 1994

facts alleged to establish municipal § 1983 liability, and (v) sovereign immunity. … Id. at 342 , 106 S.Ct. at 1097 (police who obtained search warrant without probable cause entitled only to qualified immunity). 45 .

Marrero v. Esso Standard Oil Co.

321 F. Supp. 2d 301 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jun 17, 2004

For Belgodere to qualify for statutory immunity he must meet at least one of the criteria in P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 12 § 1291(a) and not fall under any of the three exceptions to *306 statutory immunity enumerated in P.R. … However, the Court notes that this is only a threshold matter in considering whether Belgo-dere qualifies for statutory immunity, b.

Scelsa v. City University of New York

806 F. Supp. 1126 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 18, 1992

Jurisdiction for 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) 7 , Title VII, is also established under *1137 § 1343(a)(3). The same analysis applies to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). 8 C. Eleventh Amendment Immunity . … This contention is clearly wrong, as a long line of cases, from Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 , 28 S.Ct. 441 , 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908) to the present clearly demonstrates.

Schneider v. California Department of Corrections

91 F. Supp. 2d 1316 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 22, 2000

Qualified Immunity Terhune argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity from damages because it was unclear whether plaintiffs had a constitutional right to have ITA funds placed in interest bearing accounts. … The defense of qualified 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

Kanuszewski v. Mich. Dep't of Health & Human Servs.

333 F. Supp. 3d 716 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Aug 8, 2018

Finally, they argue that the claims for money damages against Defendants in their individual capacity are barred by qualified immunity because Defendants have not violated any clearly established rights. Id. at 28-29. … Rather, the 6th Circuit's holding was limited: if such a medical examination did constitute a fourth amendment search, that fact was not clearly established in law for the purposes of qualified immunity.

Miller v. United States

926 F. Supp. 642 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 22, 1996

First, the United States argues plaintiff cannot “establish ] that the position of the United States in the proceeding was not substantially .justified.” 26 U.S.C. § 7430 (c)(4)(A)(i). … United States, 723 F.Supp. 163, 169 (W.D.Mo.1989), the better view is clearly to apply the $2 million limit. Estate of Woll, 44 F.3d 464 , 468 (7th Cir.1994). 3 .

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

Reid v. Aransas County

805 F. Supp. 2d 322 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Apr 6, 2011

Plaintiff has clearly stated that he sought to be rehired on numerous occasions, and has also provided proof that ACSO is actively hiring. (D.E. 30-36; D.E. 30 at 23.) … Defendant next contends that sovereign immunity bars any declaratory judgment. (D.E. 12 at 8.) Aransas County cannot, however, claim sovereign immunity.

Blair v. U.S. Treasury Department

596 F. Supp. 273 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 19, 1984

The Court found that a federal official enjoys only a qualified immunity, so that he could be liable individually if he knows or should have known that he is acting outside the law. Id. at 506-07 , 98 S.Ct. at 2911 . … If the officials are alleged to have exceeded their authority and to have operated outside the scope of their official duties, then only the qualified immunity applies. Hutchinson, 677 F.2d at 1328 ; Nelson v.

Stana v. School District

598 F. Supp. 842 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 4, 1984

Two elements must be established to constitute a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . … We believe that Plaintiff clearly has redress in the state courts of Pennsylvania. E.g. McKelvey v. Colonial School Dist., 22 Pa.Commwlth. 207, 348 A.2d 445 (1975).

United States v. Board of Educ. of City of Chicago

610 F. Supp. 695 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 23, 1985

The work-product immunity is qualified, like the deliberative-process privi *701 lege; it protects documents prepared by counsel in anticipation of litigation. See, e.g., Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(3). … Rizzo, 97 F.R.D. at 752 , involved only the deliberative process privilege and the work-product immunity, both of which are qualified. The attorney-client privilege was not a part of the case.

Gilmore v. Bostic

636 F. Supp. 2d 496 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Mar 27, 2009

Nothing apparent from the face of the plaintiffs complaint clearly establishes that the plaintiff has failed to exhaust any administrative remedies. … Bostic makes the further arguments that she is protected by qualified immunity and Elev *506 enth Amendment immunity.

Eske v. Hynes

601 F. Supp. 142 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Jan 15, 1985

As executive officers acting within the scope of their official duties, all three defendants are immune “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … This qualified immunity applies here since there was no violation of the plaintiffs rights. Indeed, the complaint fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted.

Reeser v. Crowley Towing & Transportation Co.

937 F. Supp. 144 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Sep 3, 1996

(Plaintiffs Complaint, ¶3) With regards to the factor involving the location of the accident, San Juan harbor is clearly within the territorial waters of Puerto Rico. … America, Inc., 42 F.3d 668, 684 (1st Cir.1994), 8 that defendant failed to repair the defective door despite plaintiffs warnings, the Court concludes that such actions do not rise to the level of intentional acts required to qualify

Rodriguez v. City of New York

861 F. Supp. 1173 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 24, 1994

Qualified immunity shields state actors from actions for civil damages alleging violations of federal law, if their conduct “did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”

Cromley v. Bd. of Educ. of Lockport

699 F. Supp. 1283 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 1, 1988

Thus mandamus would be inappropriate here. 3.Qualified Immunity Harlow v. … Such immunity is *1293 available to individual defendants “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Berthiaume v. Caron

973 F. Supp. 29 · District Court, D. Maine · Jul 10, 1997

Qualified Immunity If Defendants’ conduct is immunized at all, it results from the qualified good faith immunity available under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . … Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity for their discretionary acts as long as their conduct does not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Glendora v. Pinkerton Security & Detective Services

25 F. Supp. 2d 447 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 20, 1998

In addition, Nevins is entitled to qualified immunity and judgment as a matter of law. See Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818-19 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 . … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, public officials are shielded from liability for civil damages if they establish that (1) their conduct did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would

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.