Case law

Caneyville Volunteer Fire Department v. Green's Motorcycle Salvage, Inc.

286 S.W.3d 790 · Kentucky Supreme Court · Jun 25, 2009

However, even if an act is discretionary, there is no immunity if it violates constitutional, statutory, or other clearly established rights, or if it is done willfully or maliciously with intent to harm, or if it is committed … Accordingly, in order to charge liability, a complainant may not merely allege injury, but must point to “a causally related Violation of a constitutional, statutory, or other clearly established right,’ ” Sloas, 201 S.W.3d

Arneson v. Jezwinski

206 Wis. 2d 217 · Wisconsin Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1996

Specifically, the circuit court judge found that Arne-son's due process rights were clearly established at the time of his suspension; therefore, Petitioners could not maintain a claim of qualified immunity. 3 The circuit … immunity turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time the action was taken."

Kevin McCourt v. Miguel Angel Delgado

241 W. Va. 495 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Apr 24, 2019

Under this standard, the petitioner officers contend they are entitled summary judgment based on qualified immunity because they did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights. … Under a qualified immunity analysis, we must determine whether the petitioner officers' alleged conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Dehn Motor Sales, LLC v. Schultz

439 Md. 460 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 22, 2014

But there’s enough that’s involved that it certainly raised it to qualified immunity, I mean to show that it was not clearly established. … established law, and therefore, were entitled to qualified immunity.

Dr. Doe v. Board of Dental Practice

2026 ME 27 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 17, 2026

in their personal capacities are barred by qualified immunity. … The individual defendants are alternatively entitled to qualified immunity for the § 1983 claim because there was no clearly established right. [¶23] “Qualified immunity is meant to protect government officials

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.

Picatti v. Miner

165 Idaho 611 · Idaho Supreme Court · Sep 10, 2019

rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.” … Nevertheless, despite the need for a jury in this bifurcated process, the ultimate legal questions of clearly established rights, potential violations of those rights, and entitlement to qualified immunity must remain in

Elwood v. County of Rice

423 N.W.2d 671 · Supreme Court of Minnesota · May 6, 1988

The test for immunity became whether the officials’ conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reason *675 able person would have known.” … The court of appeals found the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiffs’ rights under the Fourth Amendment were clearly established at the time of the incident. Creighton v. City of St.

In Re Litigation Relating to the Riot of September 22, 1991

283 Mont. 277 · Montana Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1997

There, the federal district court had denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, concluding that the defendant's actions violated clearly established law, and the Third Circuit held … Reiterating the well- established standard of qualified immunity articulated in Harlow v.

Hutchison v. City of Huntington

198 W. Va. 139 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1996

in light of clearly established law, to a given (for purposes of appeal) set of facts. … When dealing with hroad rights, the plaintiff bears the burden of particularizing such a right before those rights are subject to the qualified immunity test of being clearly established.

Heleba v. Allbee

160 Vt. 283 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Jan 17, 1992

We conclude, however, that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. A. … Thus, the test is an objective one, requiring a determination of the objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law. Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 .

Carrillo v. Rostro

114 N.M. 607 · New Mexico Supreme Court · Aug 28, 1992

Applying this proposition to a request for qualified immunity, we examine whether the opposing party has presented evidence to support a violation of clearly established law, so as to require a trial on the merits. … Finding that plaintiff had this clearly established right, however, does not quite dispose of the qualified-immunity issue in this case, because in order to determine whether defendants unconstitutionally infringed her right

Layland v. Stevens

171 P.3d 1070 · Wyoming Supreme Court · Dec 4, 2007

These undisputed facts establish that the Secret Service agents are entitled to qualified immunity. … Layland argues that Deputy Stevens is not entitled to qualified immunity because it was clearly established and a reasonable officer would have known that entry onto Mr.

Furlong v. Gardner

1998 Colo. J. C.A.R. 1302 · Supreme Court of Colorado · Mar 23, 1998

any clearly established right. … to support a violation of a clearly established law.”

McCormick v. Board of Shawnee County Comm'rs

272 Kan. 627 · Supreme Court of Kansas · Dec 7, 2001

Waiver of qualified immunity. … fact, which if proven, would demonstrate a violation of clearly established law.

Cunningham ex rel Gaines v. Baltimore Cnty.

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 25, 2024

Because the law was not clearly established at the time, qualified immunity is proper. … Alternatively, the Defendants argued that Corporal Ruby was entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate clearly established law.

Lyons v. City of Lewiston

666 A.2d 95 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 19, 1995

“The two-part test for denial of qualified immunity is (1) whether the plaintiffs constitutional rights were violated, and (2) whether those rights were so clearly established that reasonable defendants would have known that … As we have recently stated, The application of the qualified immunity doctrine turns on the “objective legal reasonableness” of the official’s action viewed in fight of the “clearly established” legal rules at the time the

STATE OF MICHIGAN v. McQUEEN

493 Mich. 135 · Michigan Supreme Court · Feb 8, 2013

’s immunity provision clearly contemplates that a registered qualifying patient’s medical use of marijuana only occur for the purpose of alleviating his own debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with his debilitating … under § 4 of the MMMA inapplicable. *155 The text of § 4(d) establishes that the MMMA intends to allow “a qualifying patient or primary caregiver” to be immune from arrest, prosecution, or penalty only if conduct related

Rico v. State

472 N.W.2d 100 · Supreme Court of Minnesota · Jun 21, 1991

In section 1983 actions government officials are entitled to immunity from liability for damages unless the official’s conduct *108 violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Nevertheless, federal decisions interpreting qualified immunity under section 1983, though certainly not conclusive, are instructive when we examine an official immunity issue because section 1983 qualified immunity and common