Case law

James A. Conrad v. New Hampshire Department of Safety & a.

167 N.H. 59 · Supreme Court of New Hampshire · Nov 6, 2014

Qualified immunity protects police officers “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … It is clear from the Supreme Court’s description of the second, “clearly established” step of the qualified immunity analysis that the second step, in turn, has two aspects.

Moresi v. State, Dept. of Wildlife & Fisheries

567 So. 2d 1081 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Sep 6, 1990

Further, the defendants have clearly carried their burden of pleading qualified immunity. … If the defendant shows that the state constitutional right alleged to have been violated was not clearly established, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.

Payne v. Breuer

891 S.W.2d 200 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Dec 19, 1994

In the case under submission, Breuer chose the latter and attempted to establish the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. … Thus, we hold that Breuer’s actions were not objectively reasonable under clearly established law. Therefore, Breuer is not entitled to qualified immunity.

PAULOS VS. FCH1, LLC

2020 NV 2 · Nevada Supreme Court · Jan 30, 2020

Mahan concluded that Officer Baca was entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. Paulos v. … Noting the two-prong showing for overcoming qualified immunity—that (1) the officers violated a constitutional right and (2) the right was clearly established—the Ninth Circuit used its

Butler Ex Rel. Biller v. Bayer

123 Nev. 450 · Nevada Supreme Court · Oct 11, 2007

Qualified immunity under federal law In 42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions, qualified immunity protects state officials from civil liability for damages resulting from discretionary acts, so long as those acts do not violate clearly … Here, because the facts as alleged by Butler do not establish any Eighth Amendment violation, a finding of qualified immunity was appropriate under Saucier. 23 Because Smith is entitled to qualified immunity, we need not

Citizens Property Insurance Corp. v. San Perdido Ass'n

37 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 691 · Supreme Court of Florida · Nov 15, 2012

There is an important difference between a departure from the essential requirements of law where there has been a violation of a clearly established principle of law and a case that involves an issue of law where the law … Without such controlling precedent, we cannot conclude that either court violated a ‘clearly established principle of law.’ ” (quoting Stilson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 692 So.2d 979, 982-83 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997))).

Burkes v. Klauser

185 Wis. 2d 308 · Wisconsin Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1994

Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 641 (1987). 5 The standard of objective legal reasonableness used in determining qualified immunity requires the court to focus on the degree to which clearly established case law gives guidance to … When a court decides a motion for summary judgment based on the defense of qualified immunity, it must determine from the complaint whether the plaintiff has alleged facts establishing a claim for a violation of a clearly

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.

Linda J. Clifford v. MaineGeneral Medical Center

91 A.3d 567 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 22, 2014

of qualified immunity is (1) whether the plaintiff’s constitutional rights were violated, and (2) whether those rights were so clearly established that reasonable defendants would have known that their specific actions … Lyons, 666 A.2d at 99; see Webb, 1999 ME 74, ¶ 8, 728 A.2d 1261 (stating that qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability under section 1983 if their conduct does not violate clearly established

Robinson v. Langdon

333 Ark. 662 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 25, 1998

Fitzgerald, the [government official] will be entitled to immunity so long as his actions do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Shuffield had “fair warning” that he was violating a clearly established right in determining that the allegation of abuse was “founded.”

Sabia v. Neville

165 Vt. 515 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Oct 18, 1996

They also argued that their actions were protected by qualified immunity. … Based on an objective standard, defendants did not violate any clearly established rights of plaintiff.

Michael E. v. State

286 Neb. 532 · Nebraska Supreme Court · Sep 6, 2013

Whether a state official should pre- vail in a qualified immunity defense depends upon the objective reasonableness of his or her conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law. 26. … Qualified immunity shields state officials in their individual capacities from civil damages if their conduct did not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have

Ryan v. City of Augusta

622 A.2d 74 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 1, 1993

Under the qualified immunity doctrine, government officials performing discretion *76 ary functions are immune from suit in actions brought pursuant to § 1983 “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Because their actions violated Ryan’s clearly established rights, Logan and Todd are not entitled to qualified immunity. III.

Brodie v. Summit County Children Services Board

51 Ohio St. 3d 112 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 23, 1990

When considering a motion for summary judgment for the defense of qualified immunity, the judge may determine not only the currently applicable law, but whether the law was clearly established at the time the alleged act … “If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct. * * *” Id. at 818-819 . See, also, Anderson v.

City of Phoenix v. Yarnell

184 Ariz. 310 · Arizona Supreme Court · Dec 14, 1995

Without ever reaching the issue of the detectives’ immunity, the court concluded that the detectives did not violate Smith’s clearly established constitutional rights. … What the County missed is that the City escaped liability not because of the detectives' qualified immunity but because there was no clearly established constitutional right that was violated. .

Leahy v. Conant

436 P.3d 1039 · Alaska Supreme Court · Mar 8, 2019

We conclude that the superintendents were entitled to qualified immunity because the prisoner’s right to a religious exception from the mail policy was not “clearly established” under existing law. … Courts in some cases have concluded that prisoner’s religious rights are “clearly established” such that prison officials accused of violating them are not entitled to qualified immunity. In Hayes v.

Longval v. Commissioner of Correction

448 Mass. 412 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Feb 23, 2007

immunity, the right *419 must be clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … immunity was available to the defendants because the law, before our decision in Haverty , was not “clearly established.”

State, Department of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services v. Doherty

167 P.3d 64 · Alaska Supreme Court · Sep 14, 2007

11 Second, "if so, was that right clearly established?" … . 18 Unlike the test for qualified immunity, the test for a facially valid $ 1983 claim does not require the court to consider whether the constitutional right in question was clearly established or whether a reasonable officer

Andrews v. Department of Environmental Protection

1998 Me. 198 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 3, 1998

Qualified immunity shields “ ‘government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Several federal circuit courts have observed that a public employee’s free speech right, as guaranteed by the Pickering decision and its progeny, will rarely be “clearly established” for purposes of a qualified immunity analysis

Billado v. Appel

165 Vt. 482 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Oct 11, 1996

Unless a later controlling precedent created the clearly established constitutional right we must find to overcome qualified immunity, we must use the DeShaney standard. … The court further held that the right was clearly established, and qualified immunity did not apply. Id. at 852 .