Case law

Selwyn Vanderpool v. West Virginia DHHR

West Virginia Supreme Court · May 26, 2020

In Crouch, the Court examined whether internal DHHR policy violations rose to the level of being violations of a clearly established right. … Stanley is entitled to qualified immunity based on W. Va.

Haney v. Monsky Ex Rel. Zager

311 S.W.3d 235 · Kentucky Supreme Court · May 7, 2010

Qualified Official Immunity As this Court thoroughly explained in Yanero v. … Qualified official immunity applies only where the act performed by the official or employee is one that is discretionary in nature. Id.

Board of County Commissioners Ex Rel. Teton County Sheriff's Department v. Bassett

8 P.3d 1079 · Wyoming Supreme Court · Jul 25, 2000

prudent police officer in similar cireumstances, refused to include Ortega among those whose fault was compared, and rejected the claim of qualified immunity. … This Court held that the implied immunity defense did not apply to operational functions of the patrolmen, which do not qualify as the basic, discretionary, policy-making type of functions that the defense of qualified immunity

Dickerson v. Mertz

547 N.W.2d 208 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Apr 17, 1996

agents] 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....” … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640-41 , 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3039-40 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523, 531-32 (1987) (concluding federal bureau of investigation agent is entitled to qualified immunity from money damages lawsuit if he can establish

WVDHHR v. Virginia Prince

West Virginia Supreme Court · Mar 21, 2019

In the proceedings below and on appeal, the Guardians assert that the DHHR Petitioners are precluded from relying on qualified immunity protections because the DHHR Petitioners violated a clearly established right. … established constitutional or statutory right, and no basis for piercing the DHHR Petitioners’ qualified immunity exists.

Gregory W. Zullo v. State of Vermont

205 A.3d 466 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Jan 4, 2019

in that it violated clearly established constitutional rights of which reasonable person would have been aware) … Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986) (noting that qualified immunity’s clearly-established-right test protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law”).

Vacha v. City of North Ridgeville

136 Ohio St. 3d 199 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 17, 2013

The court held that because an intentional tort may arise out of the employment relationship between a political subdivision and its employee, North Ridgeville did not establish that it was entitled to immunity as a matter … The court of appeals simply held that North Ridgeville did not establish entitlement to immunity as a matter of law. Id. at ¶ 23.

Struck v. Hackett

668 A.2d 411 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 27, 1995

“Under the qualified immunity doctrine, government officials performing discretionary functions are immune from suit in actions brought pursuant to § 1983 ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional … The application of the qualified immunity doctrine turns on the “objective legal reasonableness of the official’s action viewed in light of the ‘clearly established’ ” legal rules at the time the action was taken.

Young ex rel. Bucy v. Jefferson County Sheriff

318 P.3d 458 · Supreme Court of Colorado · Jan 13, 2014

by the legislature, and both clearly indicate that the good faith of any person who qualifies for immunity "shall be presumed." … To hold otherwise would impermissibly defile the legislature's attempt to immunize qualifying law enforcement officers from liability.

TM v. Noblitt

650 So. 2d 1340 · Mississippi Supreme Court · Jan 12, 1995

We are of the opinion that the lower court correctly articulated the law of qualified public official immunity, but find that the dismissal of this cause was premature. … The issue of common law qualified immunity was recently revisited in Womble v. Singing River Hosp., 618 So.2d 1252 (Miss. 1993).

Gant v. Maness

786 So. 2d 401 · Mississippi Supreme Court · Jun 7, 2001

This, according to longstanding Mississippi law, is clearly insufficient to establish a duty of care owing to him in particular: when the duty imposed upon an officer is one solely to the public, the failure to perform it … Now, in developing his argument for qualified immunity, Gant asserts that his duties regarding Thompson's incarceration were discretionary and that he is, thus, entitled to qualified immunity.

Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government v. Smolcic

142 S.W.3d 128 · Kentucky Supreme Court · Aug 26, 2004

The trial court also dismissed the claims against the individual employees on grounds that they were entitled to qualified official immunity. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 817-18 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396, 409-10 (1982) (qualified immunity for presidential assistants).

Womble v. Singing River Hosp.

618 So. 2d 1252 · Mississippi Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1993

Qualified Immunity The trial court granted summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity to the members of the board of trustees for Singing River Hospital, Dr. Jack Longmire, Dr. … Moreover, it promotes a goal beyond the pale of the traditional justification for qualified immunity. Today, we hold that common law qualified public official immunity will be restricted to its designed purpose.

Livingood v. Meece

477 N.W.2d 183 · North Dakota Supreme Court · Nov 12, 1991

Meece asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity under the circumstances of this case. … 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.

WVDHHR v. V.P.

West Virginia Supreme Court · Mar 21, 2019

In the proceedings below and on appeal, the Guardians assert that the DHHR Petitioners are precluded from relying on qualified immunity protections because the DHHR Petitioners violated a clearly established right. … established constitutional or statutory right, and no basis for piercing the DHHR Petitioners’ qualified immunity exists.

Smith v. Stafford

189 P.3d 1065 · Alaska Supreme Court · Aug 8, 2008

that qualified immunity is appropriate. … 42 If the allegations show a constitutional violation, courts then must determine whether the right allegedly violated was "clearly established," which occurs where the "contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear that

Madison County Fiscal Court v. Kentucky Labor Cabinet

352 S.W.3d 572 · Kentucky Supreme Court · Aug 25, 2011

qualified official immunity. … As such, Appellants contend they either share the state’s sovereign immunity or are cloaked with governmental or qualified official immunity as entities performing a public function.

Finch v. Wemlinger

310 N.W.2d 66 · Supreme Court of Minnesota · Sep 11, 1981

In Scheuer the Court defined qualified immunity in these words: [I]n varying scope, a qualified immunity is available to officers of the executive branch of government, the variation being dependent upon the scope of discretion … We will continue to apply the federal standard of qualified immunity in actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 brought in state court. The burden of pleading the defense of qualified immunity rests with defendants, Gomez v.

Kaplan v. Pointer

501 A.2d 1269 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 18, 1985

. at 2701 (absolute immunity deemed “a functionally mandated incident of the President’s unique office”), while Harlow held that a presidential aide was entitled only to a qualified immunity, 457 U.S. at 809-14, 102 S.Ct. … Forsyth, — U.S.-, 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (granting former Attorney General of the United States qualified rather than absolute immunity from suit for damages arising out of allegedly unconstitutional conduct

Kelley v. CITY OF WILLIAMSON, WEST VIRGINIA

221 W. Va. 506 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 21, 2007

In Baker , the court recognized that “[although qualified immunity is ‘in part an entitlement not to be forced to litigate,’ when the law is clearly established, immunity from trial is appropriate only when the plaintiff … has not demonstrated any genuine issues of material fact which must be resolved to determine whether the defendant’s actions were reasonable under clearly established law.”