Case law

Van Houten v. Baughman

663 F. Supp. 887 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jun 30, 1987

Therefore, we hold that Defendant has failed to meet his burden of establishing the lack of a genuine issue of material fact and summary judgment is denied on this count. (2) Immunity Defendant asserts that even if no probable … cause existed, he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Phillip Hill v. State of New Hampshire Department of Corrections, et al.

2023 DNH 077 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Jun 27, 2023

Ct. 1176 (2023) (concluding that state did not waive immunity where its prior filings explicitly reserved the right to raise sovereign immunity). … Rehabilitation Act Claims Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act prohibits federal grant recipients from discriminating against “qualified individual[s] with a disability.” 29 U.S.C. § 794.

American Kitchen Delights, Inc. v. City Of Harvey

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 2, 2025

Qualified Immunity Finally, the Court agrees with Defendants that qualified immunity for Mayor Clark is appropriate as to the Procedural Due Process claim. … But the Supreme Court has clearly held that the qualified immunity standard is objective, not subjective. Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 641 (1987); Crawford-El v.

Mobile County Water, Sewer & Fire Protection Authority, Inc. v. Mobile Area Water & Sewer System, Inc.

567 F. Supp. 2d 1342 · District Court, S.D. Alabama · Jul 23, 2008

See Bolt, 980 F.2d at 1385 (“the municipality is not required to point to a specific, detailed legislative authorization” to establish state action immunity defense). … As such, any suggestion that MAWSS does not qualify as a political subdivision for state action immunity purposes would appear doomed.

Hare v. City of Corinth, Miss.

814 F. Supp. 1312 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Mar 1, 1993

long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … While the entitlement to qualified immunity may be established as a matter of law by the district court, the proper course is for a jury to evaluate the question if there are triable issues of fact about whether an officer

Mabardy v Sanders, et al.

2014 DNH 005 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Jan 14, 2014

If plaintiff's assertions are true, and no mitigating factors are later established. Officer Sanders would not be entitled to either qualified immunity or official immunity.

Mencias Avila v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 11, 2019

In Wesby, the Court addressed issues related to probable cause and the “clearly established law” standard in the qualified immunity context, not the principles of causation in the Fourth Amendment seizure context that Defendant … Courts have consistently analyzed an officer- defendant’s “just following orders” defense to a § 1983 action under the second, “clearly established law” prong of the qualified immunity framework, not as a potential barrier

Bills Ex Rel. Bills v. Hommer Consolidated School District Number 33-C

959 F. Supp. 507 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 14, 1997

Qualified Immunity At this point, only Counts I and IV remain. … Defendants move to dismiss Count I against Jolas by asserting a qualified immunity defense. Qualified immunity is a defense available to government officials under certain conditions.

Alexander v. City of Greensboro

762 F. Supp. 2d 764 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jan 5, 2011

Since Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts showing a plausible claim under section 1983 or section 1985(3), it is unnecessary to address Wade’s qualified immunity argument. 15 . … The GPD Defendants have not raised qualified immunity as a defense to any of the federal claims against them. Because qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that must be raised by the defendant, see Henry v.

Ernst v. Borough of Fort Lee

739 F. Supp. 220 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 5, 1990

Even were I to conclude that the officers in question enjoyed qualified immunity (a proposition which appears doubtful — see below), the municipality would not be exempt on this ground. … City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622, 655 , 100 S.Ct. 1398, 1417 , 63 L.Ed.2d 673 (1980), municipalities are not entitled to qualified immunity based upon the good faith actions of their officers.

Wilson v. City of Chanute

43 F. Supp. 2d 1202 · District Court, D. Kansas · Feb 23, 1999

Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. Once the defendant has properly raised the defense of qualified immunity in a summary judgment motion, [the court applies] a two-part framework. … right claimed to have been violated was clearly established on March 7, 1996.

Zook v. Brown

575 F. Supp. 72 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Oct 7, 1983

These clearly established rights do not appear in this case. In all instances, Defendants’ actions were reviewed by competent attorneys. … The record, and the decision in this case, contradicts any conclusion that clearly established rights existed.

Blanche v. Diners Club International, Inc.

130 F.R.D. 28 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 19, 1990

Notwithstanding the importance of the doctrine, work product immunity is a “qualified privilege” as opposed to the “absolute privilege” granted to attorney-client communications. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(3); United States v. … Thus, it is clear that Magistrate Bernikow’s finding of a waiver of work product immunity by plaintiff was not clearly erroneous. B.

Frane v. Kijowski

992 F. Supp. 985 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 27, 1998

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “governmental officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct *990 does not violate clearly established statutory … Once a defendant has asserted a defense of qualified immunity, courts ask: 1) whether the alleged conduct violated a specific constitutional right; and 2) whether constitutional standards were clearly established at the time

Sheppard v. Beerman

190 F. Supp. 2d 361 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 7, 2002

— the employer’s actual motive for firing the employee — with the objective focus of the qualified immunity doctrine. … ’s actual (subjective) motive is not irrelevant in a qualified immunity inquiry.

Kaplan v. James

25 F. Supp. 3d 835 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Jun 6, 2014

EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. § 1614.504 has established a remedial scheme for addressing an agency breach of an administrative settlement agreement. … monetary claims, the court’s statement is unqualified and clearly phrased.

Mother Goose Nursery Schools, Inc. v. Sendak

591 F. Supp. 897 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 29, 1984

The foregoing decision with respect to immunity was written at a time when the state of the law with respect to qualified immunity permitted the court to consider both an objective and subjective aspect with respect to the … The change that Harlow brought to the law does not convince this court that Judge McNagny’s decision with respect to qualified immunity in this case was incorrect.

Quimbey ex rel. Faure v. Community Health Systems Professional Services Corp.

222 F. Supp. 3d 1038 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Oct 20, 2016

Thus, the PSQIA preempts ROIA if ROIA would permit discovery of documents that qualify as patient safety work product. … Jan 25, 2016) (unpublished) (reasoning that although a literal reading of Vermont’s peer review statute does not suggest that the Joint Commission qualifies as a “peer review committee,” the work of the Commission is “clearly

Ortiz v. San Miguel County

955 F. Supp. 1338 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Nov 29, 1996

Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 , 106 S.Ct. 1092, 1096 , 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986) (Qualified immunity protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.”). … The Court finds that Defendants’ conduct did not violate clearly established law.

Mitchell v. City of Boston

130 F. Supp. 2d 201 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 26, 2001

Transit Auth., 124 F.3d 123, 130 (2nd Cir.1997) (refusing to dismiss a § 1983 claim that two officers violated the plaintiffs’ clearly established constitutional rights by conspiring to fabricate and forward to prosecutors … The defendants, putting all of their eggs in the absolute immunity basket, have made no argument on these motions that, absent success on this argument, they are entitled to qualified immunity.