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.

McHenry v. PA. STATE SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUC.

50 F. Supp. 2d 401 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 11, 1999

The Supreme Court has explained what it means by clearly established law for the purpose of qualified immunity: The contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand what he is doing … If the actions of the government official, as alleged by the plaintiff, do not even rise to a level of a constitutional violation, then that official is clearly entitled to qualified immunity.

Gatlin Ex Rel. Gatlin v. Green

227 F. Supp. 2d 1064 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Sep 26, 2002

To withstand a motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, a civil rights plaintiff must (1) assert a violation of a constitutional right; (2) demonstrate that the alleged right is clearly established; and … Reasonableness of Green’s Actions The final question used in evaluating questions of qualified immunity is whether the officer should have known his conduct violated clearly established rights. Omni 285 F.3d at 654 .

Turner Ex Rel. Turner v. Liverpool Central School

186 F. Supp. 2d 187 · District Court, N.D. New York · Feb 11, 2002

The Constitutionality of New York Public Health Law § 2164(9) 5 Defendants contend that the statutory exemption to New York State’s immunization requirement violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the … In determining whether an individual qualifies for an exemption from the immunization requirement under § 2164(9), courts have utilized a two-prong analysis.

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.

Guile 429156 v. Spence

District Court, W.D. Michigan · Sep 12, 2019

Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), and accept Plaintiff’s allegations as true, unless they are clearly irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). … [the] clearly established right of access to the courts”).

In re the Leslie Fay Companies, Inc. Securities Litigation

161 F.R.D. 274 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 26, 1995

See also, Rule 26(b)(3), Fed.R.Civ.Pro. advisory committee note (“Materials assembled ... for other nonlitigation purposes are not under the qualified immunity provided by this subdivision.”). … While admittedly potential legal liability played a part in the investigation’s undertaking, significant other factors were clearly present.

Stanley v. Carrier Mills-Stonefort School District No. 2

459 F. Supp. 2d 766 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Sep 21, 2006

Morgan’s Qualified Immunity Morgan claims he is entitled to the defense of qualified immunity with regard to Counts I, III and IV. … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Matje v. Leis

571 F. Supp. 918 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 12, 1983

Finally, the Harlow Court stated that [b]y defining the limits of qualified immunity essentially in objective terms, we provide no license to lawless conduct. … We note in addition that the burden of proving qualified immunity is squarely upon defendants, Alexander v. Alexander, 706 F.2d 751 (6th Cir.1983).

Whitton v. City of Houston

676 F. Supp. 137 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Nov 9, 1987

Alternatively, if such a duty existed, Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s constitutional rights were not so clearly established at the time of the alleged violation as to overcome Defendants’ qualified immunity. … . § 1983 It is well established that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not itself create substantive rights; it merely provides a remedy for federal rights established elsewhere. City of Oklahoma City v.

Ferguson v. City of Louisville

199 F. Supp. 2d 625 · District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Apr 30, 2002

In sum, Bybee actions in obtaining and relying on the warrant were objectively reasonable, and he is therefore entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. III. … The individual officers’ actions were likewise objectively reasonable, and they too are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claims. B.

State v. U.S. Dep't of Educ.

377 F. Supp. 3d 823 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 26, 2019

In turn, the state licensing agencies issue licenses to qualified vendors and equip vending facilities. Id. … However, "[a] state can waive its immunity explicitly when it opts to participate in a federal program in which Congress clearly has conditioned participation on such a waiver." Edelman v.

Harbin v. City of Alexandria

712 F. Supp. 67 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Apr 25, 1989

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields them. See Barts v. Joyner, 865 F.2d 1187 (11th Cir.1989) (qualified immunity applied to Terry stop situation); see also Pierson v. … The qualified immunity standard in Sevigny is plainly applicable to a Terry stop situation.

Cahaly v. Larosa

25 F. Supp. 3d 817 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Jun 10, 2014

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials per *830 forming discretionary functions from liability for civil damages where “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The steps in determining whether officials are entitled to qualified immunity are: (1) an inquiry into whether the plaintiff has alleged a deprivation of a constitutional right and (2) whether that right was clearly established

D.N. Ex Rel. Nelson v. Snyder

608 F. Supp. 2d 615 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2009

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects a state actor who has committed constitutional violations if the plaintiffs rights were not “clearly established” when the individual acted. Pearson v. … The court finds that Snyder and Watts are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Coover v. Saucon Valley School District

955 F. Supp. 392 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 26, 1997

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), the United States Supreme Court established the standard for a grant of qualified immunity. … If the law was clearly established, the Court held that “the immunity defense ordinarily should fail____” Id. at 818-19 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 .

Rivera Borrero v. Rivera Correa

93 F. Supp. 2d 122 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Apr 10, 2000

While it is true that qualified immunity shields government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), qualified immunity is not available in official capacity suits, such as this one, because an official capacity suit is actually a suit against the entity

Sacred Heart Hospital v. Heckler

601 F. Supp. 299 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 9, 1984

The Secretary ruled that the DSRFs did not qualify as funded depreciation because they were established with borrowed funds. … The Secretary has now clearly adopted the one applied in this case.

Platt v. Brockenborough

476 F. Supp. 2d 467 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 21, 2007

.is clearly established). … Defendants have not raised a qualified immunity defense, and this Court may not raise it for them. Harlow v.

Alinsky v. United States

156 F. Supp. 2d 908 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 2, 2001

Willie Card’s affidavit (which is essentially unrebutted by plaintiffs) coupled with plaintiffs’ own characterization of Midwest’s contractual relationship with the FAA clearly establishes that the FAA does not control the … Plaintiffs interpret this order to mean that an FAA air traffic controller who does not qualify as a supervisor may not stand watch alone.