Case law

Mumm v. Mornson

708 N.W.2d 475 · Supreme Court of Minnesota · Jan 10, 2006

rights was not clearly established. … To avoid application of qualified immunity, the law regarding Mornson’s right to be free from the unreasonable use of force must have been clearly established at the time of the pursuit.

Virden v. Roper

302 Ark. 125 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 23, 1990

The appealability of a denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity from suit is clearly established. Robinson v. Beaumont, supra; Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985); and see Cohen v. … They maintain in the alternative if a violation of a constitutional right occurred, it is not a “clearly established” right and, hence, appellants are entitled to qualified immunity under Mitchell, supra.

Stevens v. Stearns

175 Vt. 428 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Aug 1, 2003

Plaintiffs argue that issue preclusion is inappropriate here because the standard for establishing qualified immunity in cases involving alleged violations of Chapter I, Article Eleven of the Vermont Constitution should be … The federal court assessed defendants’ actions in light of this “clearly established” right. We are asked to conduct the same analysis here. *437 ¶ 23.

Benjamin v. Washington State Bar Ass'n

980 P.2d 742 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 22, 1999

No qualified immunity for violation of a clearly established right. Harwick's threshold defense is qualified immunity. [1] Harlow v. … Clearly, qualified immunity is appropriate only where assertions of fact by the plaintiff do not rise to the level of a clearly established constitutional violation.

Gentile v. Bauder

718 So. 2d 781 · Supreme Court of Florida · Sep 24, 1998

Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from civil damages to the extent that "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … probable cause under clearly established precedent.

Penterman v. Wisconsin Electric Power Co.

211 Wis. 2d 458 · Wisconsin Supreme Court · Jul 2, 1997

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability if their conduct does not violate a person's clearly established constitutional rights. Harlow v. … Merely alleging a general violation of a right that may be clearly established in the constitution is insufficient to justify withholding qualified immunity. Barnhill, 166 Wis. 2d at 408 .

City of Lakewood v. Brace

20 Brief Times Rptr. 981 · Supreme Court of Colorado · Jun 24, 1996

violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … immunity to appeal a district court’s denial of summary judgment on that defense if the issue on appeal is whether the constitutional right that was allegedly violated was “clearly established.”

Commonwealth v. Robinson

399 Pa. Super. 199 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 5, 1990

Appellant’s second issue relates to the expert testimony offered by the Commonwealth to establish that the drugs possessed by appellant were for delivery to others, rather than for personal use. … If accepted by the jury, as it clearly was, it provided an adequate basis upon which to conclude that the Commonwealth proved the intent to deliver element of the crime charged. Commonwealth v.

Lawson v. Garcia

912 P.2d 1136 · Wyoming Supreme Court · Mar 15, 1996

Qualified immunity is, of course, an affirmative defense; but once it is raised, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that the federal rights allegedly impaired by the defendant were clearly established at the time the … CONCLUSION Since Garcia failed to demonstrate that Lawson violated a clearly established federal right, Lawson is entitled to invoke the defense of qualified immunity.

Duarte v. Healy

405 Mass. 43 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · May 10, 1989

The first was common law immunity, as variously expressed in our cases, and the second was a qualified immunity patterned after Federal qualified immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . Id. at 35, 38 . … Furthermore, the Supreme Court already had established the basic two-part test for determining to what discretionary functions the doctrine of qualified immunity applies.

Romero v. Sanchez

119 N.M. 690 · New Mexico Supreme Court · Apr 24, 1995

Believing Officer Sanchez violated clearly established law, we held that he was not entitled to qualified immunity. … The Act was passed prior to the genesis of the modern qualified immunity law established in Harlow.

Jeffrey Frost & A. v. Michael Delaney & A

168 N.H. 353 · Supreme Court of New Hampshire · Nov 17, 2015

We begin by reviewing the doctrine of qualified immunity. The doctrine of qualified immunity is a creature of federal law. Id. at 42. … In other words, the official is entitled to immunity unless her actions violated “legal norms clearly established at the time of the challenged actions.” Richardson v.

Levinsky v. Diamond

151 Vt. 178 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Feb 17, 1989

So, too, we find that none of the alleged actions by the assistant attorneys general violated clearly established laws or rights, and we thus conclude that they also meet the second prong of the qualified immunity test. … In addition, their appearance violated no clearly established rights of plaintiff.

Scales v. District of Columbia

973 A.2d 722 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 18, 2009

, ultimately holding that he was entitled to immunity because the allegations, taken as true, had “fail[ed] to establish that under the particular circumstances here [Officer] Young violated his clearly established Fomth … if the right was not clearly established at the time, the officer may still enjoy its protection.

Hess v. West Virginia Division of Corrections

227 W. Va. 15 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 23, 2010

The one difference in [qualified] immunity cases is that the official’s act must be shown to have violated clearly established law of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Va.Code, 29-12A-1, et seq., is entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability for official acts if the involved conduct did not violate clearly established laws of which a reasonable official would have known.

Arneson v. Jezwinski

225 Wis. 2d 371 · Wisconsin Supreme Court · May 5, 1999

In its decision, the circuit court identified the rule governing its qualified immunity inquiry: the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiffs rights were clearly established in the law, such that … a defense of qualified immunity. ¶ 29.

Fleming v. City of Bridgeport

284 Conn. 502 · Supreme Court of Connecticut · Dec 4, 2007

clearly established law or (2) it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that his actions did not violate clearly established law.” … The plaintiff contends that the municipal defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because they violated clearly established law under the fourth amendment when they effected an unlawful seizure of her property by

Clifford J Ochser v. Gerard funk/anthony Cruz

228 Ariz. 365 · Arizona Supreme Court · Dec 21, 2011

Although we hold that Ochser’s arrest was an unreasonable seizure prohibited by the Fourth Amendment, we conclude that the deputies are entitled to qualified immunity because then-existing law did not clearly establish … Clearly Established Law ¶26 We now turn to the second step of the qualified- immunity analysis — whether the right was clearly established at the time of Ochser’s arrest.

Rosenberger v. Kootenai County Sheriff's Department

140 Idaho 853 · Idaho Supreme Court · Dec 17, 2004

If A Constitutional Right Was Arguably Violated, The Right Was Not Clearly Established. … based on qualified immunity is proper.

Barnhill v. Board of Regents of the UW System

166 Wis. 2d 395 · Wisconsin Supreme Court · Feb 12, 1992

From Anderson , we glean several guidelines concerning the level of generality afforded to "clearly established law" in the qualified immunity determination. … Merely alleging a general violation of a right that may be clearly established by the constitution or a statute is insufficient clarity of established law to justify withholding qualified immunity.