Case law

Baptie v. Bruno and McNeil

195 Vt. 308 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Dec 6, 2013

We first address the superior court’s ruling that defendant is entitled to qualified official immunity under, the circumstances of this case. * “Qualified immunity attaches to public officials who are (1) acting during the … An objective person in defendant’s position could not have believed that his conduct violated clearly established law. ¶ 16.

Jordan v. Sinsheimer

403 Mass. 586 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Dec 14, 1988

The defendant asserts that at least qualified immunity is available to him because his conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … One issue is whether on clearly established principles of law, he could have reasonably believed his acts to be lawful. Breault v. Chairman of the Bd. of Fire Comm’rs of Springfield, 401 Mass. 26 , 32 (1987).

Obert v. State

419 Mont. 1 · Montana Supreme Court · Nov 12, 2024

Qualified Prosecutorial Immunity. … Ct. at 2815 (government officer “entitled to dismissal” of compensatory civil claim due to qualified immunity “[u]nless the [complaint] allegations” are facially sufficient to “state a claim of violation of clearly established

Thoma v. Hickel

947 P.2d 816 · Alaska Supreme Court · Aug 15, 1997

Qualified immunity under federal law protects officials except where it is “clearly established” as of the time of the acts complained of that the acts violated the plaintiffs rights. … If the plaintiffs allegations fail to establish a constitutional claim, the defendant is entitled to dismissal on the basis of qualified immunity, or, of course, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

D'AOUST v. Diamond

424 Md. 549 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 31, 2012

qualified immunity. … The test clearly conflates the doctrines of absolute judicial immunity and qualified public official immunity.

State of West Virginia ex rel. Gabriel Devono and The Board of Education of Randloph County v. The Honorable David H. Wilmoth, Judge of the Circuit Court of Randolph Coutny, Sherman Arbogast, and Marlene Arbogast

West Virginia Supreme Court · Jun 15, 2023

Devono now assert the defense of qualified immunity? … Hall, 828 F.3d 298, 303 (4th Cir. 2016) (“Qualified immunity shields government officials from personal liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known

Brown & Gay Engineering, Inc. v. Zuleima Olivares, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of Pedro Olivares, Jr., & Pedro Olivares

58 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 678 · Texas Supreme Court · Apr 24, 2015

Brown & Gay’s reliance on Filar-sky's qualified-immunity analysis is misplaced. … The federal doctrine of qualified immunity “protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

George MacKie v. Katrin Rouse-Weir / George MacKie v. Robert Joss

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Jan 24, 2025

Second, both legal precedent and the statutory framework of c. 123A establish that the role of qualified examiners is not only essential, but quasi judicial. … established statutory or constitutional right for the purpose of determining whether qualified immunity applied. [13] In his complaint, Mackie alleged that Joss "was hired by the [DOC] as a [qualified examiner] and assigned

District of Columbia v. Jackson

810 A.2d 388 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 14, 2002

that the officers acted beyond the reach of qualified immunity protection). … That "general proposition,” the.Supreme Court reiterated in Saucier, "is not enough” to resolve the immunity question; instead "the right the official is alleged to have violated must have been clearly established in a more

Zaragoza v. Board of Johnson County Comm'rs

Supreme Court of Kansas · Jun 27, 2025

Second, she claims that even if the library itself is a qualifying property, the immunity exception does not apply to the parking lot because granting immunity to areas "integral" to the function of a qualifying property … For example, the public library's StoryWalk would qualify for recreational use immunity if it was hosted outdoors but would not qualify for immunity if it was hosted indoors.

Jeremiah Hogan v. Lincoln Medical Partners

2025 ME 22 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 4, 2025

Even construed strictly because it is in derogation of the common law, the immunity statute is clearly broad in scope. See Jamison v. … As to Hogan’s assertion that the immunity provision violates the child’s constitutional right of bodily integrity, “[i]n the context of COVID-19, courts across the country have concluded that Jacobson established that there

Venegas v. County of Los Angeles

11 Cal. Rptr. 3d 692 · California Supreme Court · Apr 5, 2004

A rule of qualified immunity shields a public officer from an action for damages under section 1983 unless the officer has violated a “clearly established” constitutional right. (Saucier, supra, 533 U.S. at p. 201.) … The high court explained that “[i]f the law did not put the officer on notice that his- conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.” (Ibid.)

Early v. Crockett

436 S.W.3d 141 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 19, 2014

“Under the standard of qualified immunity articulated in Harlow v. … “The more critical inquiry for qualified-immunity purposes is whether it was ‘objectively legally reasonable’ for the prison officials to believe that [their] conduct did not violate the inmate’s clearly established Eighth

Spenner v. CITY OF SIOUX FALLS, SOUTH DAKOTA

580 N.W.2d 606 · South Dakota Supreme Court · Jun 3, 1998

“To find whether qualified immunity applies, the test is to ask if the officer’s conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights a reasonable officer would have known at the time.” Id. … ” of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time it was taken. ****** [0]ur cases establish that the right the official is alleged to have violated must have been “clearly

Robinson v. City of Seattle

119 Wash. 2d 34 · Washington Supreme Court · May 14, 1992

constitutional or statutory rights; such persons are entitled to qualified immunity from a claim under section 1983 if their conduct is objectively reasonable when measured against clearly established law. … Qualified immunity from suit must be granted when the law or right allegedly violated is not clearly established. Conner v. Santa Ana, 897 F.2d 1487 , 1492 (9th Cir. 1990).

Elkins v. McKenzie

865 So. 2d 1065 · Mississippi Supreme Court · Oct 30, 2003

The first step in the qualified immunity analysis is to determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the violation of a clearly established federal constitutional (or federal statutory) right. Hare v. … To ensure that qualified immunity serves its intended purpose, it is of paramount import, during step two, to define "clearly established law" at the proper level of generality. Anderson v.

County of Adams v. Hibbard

20 Brief Times Rptr. 952 · Supreme Court of Colorado · Jun 17, 1996

The qualified immunity defense should fail if the law was clearly established because “a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his [or her] conduct.” … called for the destruction of Garrison’s residence because, in their view, avoiding clearly established procedures would be cheaper.

Dorwart v. Caraway

290 Mont. 196 · Montana Supreme Court · Aug 4, 1998

In other words, the plaintiffs have to prove a negative in order to establish that they had a right which the majority initially concedes is clearly established. ¶ 148 I also dissent from the majority’s conclusion that Brophy … The majority’s decision to affirm the dismissal of Brophy and Stillwater County is based on the same unsound conclusion on which its qualified immunity decision is based — i.e., that Dorwart had no clearly established right

Durrant v. BD. OF EDUC. OF CITY OF HARTFORD

284 Conn. 91 · Supreme Court of Connecticut · Oct 2, 2007

pursuant to section 10-16n [which allows the establishment of grant programs to assist local boards of education establishing extended day Head Start programs]”). … “[A] municipal employee . . . has a qualified immunity in the performance of a governmental duty, but he may be liable if he misperforms a ministerial act ... .

Rich v. Montpelier Supervisory District

167 Vt. 415 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Jan 23, 1998

He misunderstands the role of the objective standard in qualified immunity analysis. … , on the basis of nothing more than the official’s pretextual assertions, that the allegedly unconstitutional conduct contravened no clearly established law.’”