Case law

Snyder v. Internal Revenue Service

596 F. Supp. 240 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 18, 1984

The Court found that a federal official enjoyed 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.

McGregory v. CITY OF JACKSON, MISS.

504 F. Supp. 2d 143 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Aug 16, 2007

The individual defendants seek dismissal of plaintiffs federal claims on the *146 basis of qualified immunity, arguing that since they had probable cause to “detain” McGregory, Sr., or at least could reasonably have believed … Further, defendants do not even acknowledge the allegations of excessive force, which allegations are manifestly sufficient to overcome defendants’ qualified immunity- Defendants seek dismissal of the state law claims under

I. & F. Corp. v. International Ass'n of Heat & Frost Insulators & Asbestos Workers, Local 8

493 F. Supp. 147 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 28, 1980

More specifically, defendant Board contends that it is immune from suit under the doctrine of “arbitral immunity”. … We turn then to consideration of the parameters of arbitral immunity. Under federal law it is now a clearly established national policy to encourage the use of arbitration. See Steelworkers Trilogy; Rhine v.

Jo v. District of Columbia

582 F. Supp. 2d 51 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 28, 2008

Defendants, however, have not claimed qualified immunity from suit in this case. See generally Defs.’ Mot. & Reply. … In the absence of qualified immunity, a plaintiff may assert a § 1983 claim against any individual who was personally and directly involved in the alleged violation. See Cameron v.

Guillory v. Administrators of Tulane University of Louisiana

203 F. Supp. 855 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Mar 28, 1962

Clearly, the administrators of a private college are performing a public function. They do the work of the state, often in the place of the state. 12 Does it not follow that they stand in the state’s shoes? … Needless to say, the instant decision offers no justification for a policy of admitting qualified Negro applicants “on a controlled basis.”

Sampson v. District of Columbia Retirement Board

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 29, 2025

have said so clearly. … And “[p]ursuant to” that letter, she “was summarily put on administrative leave”—which itself may qualify as an adverse action. Id. ¶ 73; see Stewart v. U.S.

Adams v. James

797 F. Supp. 940 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 18, 1992

Evans, 922 F.2d 712, 718 (1991), in determining whether the defense of qualified immunity is available, the District Court must ... determine whether the allegedly violated right was clearly established, and then to determine … Therefore, Plaintiffs would be entitled to qualified immunity on this issue. B.

Royster-Clark Agribusiness, Inc. v. Johnson

391 F. Supp. 2d 21 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 29, 2005

“It is to be *24 presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” … As subsection 307(b)(1) provides no jurisdiction in this Court, it is impossible for this case to qualify for the waiver of sovereign immunity.

Evans v. Evans

818 F. Supp. 1215 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 8, 1993

As interpreted by the Seventh Circuit, “a qualified immunity analysis entails a purely objective inquiry to determine whether, at the time of the alleged illegal act, the right asserted by the plaintiff was clearly established … Wadman, 595 F.Supp. 188, 288 (C.D.Utah 1982), aff'd 745 F.2d 606 (10th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1028 , 105 S.Ct. 1396 , 84 L.Ed.2d 785 (1985) (school superintendent entitled to qualified immunity for initiating prosecution

Van Poyck v. Dugger

779 F. Supp. 571 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Oct 8, 1991

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY “Qualified immunity shields government officials executing discretionary responsibilities from civil damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … The Court concludes, therefore, that the law was clearly established at the time Plaintiff was denied his request to have Ms. Chisholm on his visitors list, and Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Danos v. Jones

721 F. Supp. 2d 491 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Jul 8, 2010

Furthermore, fundamental to Danos’s attempt to avoid the application of sovereign immunity is the fact that “to qualify for the ultra vires exception, [Danos] must assert a viable cause of action.” Howe v. … Accordingly, Danos has also failed to establish the unconstitutional acts basis for the Larson ultra vires exception to sovereign immunity. 6 V.

Pears v. Mobile County

645 F. Supp. 2d 1062 · District Court, S.D. Alabama · Aug 7, 2009

Besides, the Court cannot find as a matter of law that Chief Collier is entitled to qualified immunity without examining the merits of the case. … or statutory rights, and (2) that those rights were clearly established at the time the officer acted.”

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.”)

Fulgham v. Daniel J. Keating Co.

285 F. Supp. 2d 525 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 29, 2003

Plaintiff does not dispute the fact that if Keating qualifies as a statutory employer, it is immune from any other type of liability. … Plaintiff, however, contends that Keating fails to establish the second and third prongs of the test and therefore is not entitled to immunity.

Aragón v. De Baca County Sheriff's Department

157 F. Supp. 3d 1039 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Mar 23, 2015

, and whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.”) … Finally, given that the police acted in conformity with a valid search warrant, Plaintiffs allegations cannot overcome Defendants’ claim of qualified immunity. Cf.

Austin v. McNamara

731 F. Supp. 934 · District Court, C.D. California · Feb 20, 1990

As a matter of law, the Court holds that all five of the individual doctor Defendants, as well as Defendant Cottage Hospital, qualify for immunity from federal antitrust liability pursuant to the provisions of the HCQIA. … Requirements to Qualify for Immunity Under the HCQIA The Defendants can qualify for immunity under the HCQIA if they can demonstrate that: A) the professional review actions complied with the standards set forth in 42 U.S.C.A

Madruga Ex Rel. Madruga v. County of Riverside

431 F. Supp. 2d 1049 · District Court, C.D. California · Nov 22, 2005

If so, the next step is to ask whether “the right [that was violated] was clearly established ... in light of the specific context of the case.” Id. … This leaves the question of whether violation of that right was clearly established at the time Deputy Smith made his entry into the courtyard.

Housing Investors, Inc. v. City of Clanton, Alabama

68 F. Supp. 2d 1287 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Oct 14, 1999

The claims of qualified immunity are, however, unavailing for all defendants. Qualified immunity protects government actors from personal liability for official acts. See Kentucky v. … The city officials are therefore not subject to personal liability, and the issue of qualified immunity is irrelevant. B.

Farrell v. Moomau

85 F. Supp. 125 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 18, 1949

No power exists in this Court to enlarge the “competitive area”, order the establishment of new positions, or the retention of the plaintiffs in their old positions irrespective of the administrative table of organization … Hague, supra, where the statute is clearly being violated, a plaintiff need not exhaust his administrative remedies, particularly where the plaintiff is faced with immediate discharge rather than merely a demotion in rank

Quinones Sepulveda v. United States

329 F. Supp. 2d 260 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 10, 2004

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW It is well established that the United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit unless it consents to be sued. United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538 , 100 S.Ct. 1349 , 63 L.Ed.2d 607 (1980). … The First Circuit firmly adheres to the established judicial recognition that the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346 , 2671-2680, waives the sovereign immunity of the United States to suits in tort.