Case law

Horne v. Crozier

565 N.W.2d 50 · South Dakota Supreme Court · Jun 4, 1997

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. Harlow v. … . [¶ 7] Law enforcement officers will be shielded by qualified immunity if (1) their conduct violates no clearly established constitutional or statutory rights; or (2) it is objectively reasonable for them to believe their

Daniel v. City of Colorado Springs

327 P.3d 891 · Supreme Court of Colorado · May 19, 2014

While a vehicle is not absolutely necessary to play golf, a parking lot next to a golf course clearly promotes golfing. … City & Cnty. of Denver, 13 P.3d 794, 799 (Colo.2000) (taking the allegations in the complaint as true for the purposes of determining whether the injured party established that a public entity waived immunity under the CGIA

Dexter Harmon v. Officer Dexter Payne, Assistant Director, Arkansas Department of Correction; Officer James Gibson, Warden, Varner Unit; Officer James Shipman, Deputy Warden, Varner Unit; Officer Yolanda Clark, Food Service Department; Officer Laquista Swopes, Correctional Officer

592 S.W.3d 619 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 16, 2020

Under that standard, Appellees are entitled to statutory immunity unless they transgress “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” See Rainey v. … The factual allegations within the complaint failed to establish an exception to sovereign immunity and avoid statutory immunity.

W. Va. Dept. of Transportation, DMV v. David King, Administrator of the Estate of Wilma Ann King

238 W. Va. 369 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 15, 2016

ANALYSIS This case involves our law of qualified immunity. … Peyton’s driver’s license, the DMV is not entitled to qualified immunity under the facts of this case.

Higgs v. District Court In & For the County of Douglas

713 P.2d 840 · Supreme Court of Colorado · Dec 2, 1985

Qualified immunity provides a governmental official performing a discretionary function with an entitlement to immunity from liability upon a showing that the challenged conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory … The applicability of qualified immunity will turn “primarily on objective factors — that is, the objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law.”

TUCKER v. ATWATER

303 Ga. 791 · Supreme Court of Georgia · Jun 4, 2018

The Court of Appeals held that the school officials were entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate any clearly established law. … established law entitles the school officials to qualified immunity.

State v. Antonich

694 P.2d 60 · Wyoming Supreme Court · Jan 10, 1985

Clearly, Wyoming’s Preference Act offends the privileges-and-immunities clause unless a close link exists between valid reasons for the Act and the discrimination practiced. … Since the degree of discrimination bears a close relation to the state’s valid reasons for discriminatory treatment, we affirm the Act’s validity under the test established in Toomer v.

Porter v. City of Manchester

151 N.H. 30 · Supreme Court of New Hampshire · May 14, 2004

Qualified Immunity Lafond next argues that the trial court erred by rejecting her qualified immunity defense. … Clearly Established Right We now turn to the second part of the qualified immunity test, whether Porter’s First Amendment rights were clearly established at the time Lafond constructively terminated him.

Reginald R. Early v. Keith Crockett, Clayborn Carroll, Roberta Lewis, and Lamon Mayo

2019 Ark. 274 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 10, 2019

Appellees, as state employees, are protected by qualified immunity. See Ark. Code Ann. § 19-10-305 (Supp. 2017). State employees’ qualified immunity extends to section 1983 claims. See Robinson v. … Under the standard of qualified immunity, a government official will be entitled to immunity so long as his actions do not violate a clearly established statutory constitutional right of which a reasonable person would

Robinson v. Bell

767 P.2d 177 · Wyoming Supreme Court · Jan 13, 1989

Immunity from suit is obviously an intended incentive for employers to qualify under the Act. … The relationship between Genuine Parts Company and NAPA is not clearly established in the record. .

A.S. ex rel. J.S. v. Reaves

1 So. 3d 980 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Jun 27, 2008

Foltz, 370 F.3d 1079 (11th Cir.2004), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that, to overcome qualified immunity, not only must the government official violate a clearly established statutory or … Fitzgerald and concluded that the constitutional right violated in that case was a clearly established one.

Cook v. City of Topeka

232 Kan. 334 · Supreme Court of Kansas · Dec 3, 1982

Navarette, 434 U.S. 555 [, 55 L.Ed.2d 24 , 98 S.Ct. 855 ] (1978) (qualified immunity for prison officials and officers); Imbler v. … Clearly the routine duty to recall a bench warrant upon payment of the fine cannot be construed as a quasi-judicial act.

Sprague v. City of Burley

109 Idaho 656 · Idaho Supreme Court · Nov 19, 1985

If the law was clearly established, the *666 immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct. … The United States Supreme Court in Harlow has established a threshold test that must be met by the plaintiff, if the defendant has asserted the affirmative defense of a qualified immunity, before a defendant’s motion for

Lord v. Murphy

561 A.2d 1013 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 12, 1989

The defendants by their answer asserted, inter alia, the defense of absolute immunity or, in the alternative, qualified immunity. … In Mitchell , the Supreme Court held that qualified immunity, similar to absolute immunity, is an entitlement of “an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability; and like an absolute immunity, it is effectively

Frances Green v. Monmouth University (080612) (Monmouth County and Statewide)

237 N.J. 516 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 7, 2019

of immunity is decided once it is established that the entity itself is “charitable,” “religious,” or “educational.” … The panel found that the concerts were nevertheless “clearly ‘educational’ and ‘charitable’ within the intent of the Charitable Immunity Act.” Ibid.

Lombard v. Edward J. Peters, Jr., P.C.

252 Conn. 623 · Supreme Court of Connecticut · Apr 4, 2000

Peters, Jr., P.C., 1 to strike the first count of the plaintiffs’ complaint on the ground of qualified immunity. … This appeal followed. 3 “In an appeal from a judgment granting a motion to strike, we operate in accordance with well established rules.

D.A.R. v. R.E.L.

272 So. 3d 1030 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Sep 7, 2018

This court has recognized the difference between absolute immunity, which defeats a suit at the outset, and qualified immunity, which depends on circumstances and motivations and often must be established by evidence at trial … are not always uniform in deciding whether absolute or qualified immunity applies."

Parkulo v. West Virginia Board of Probation & Parole

199 W. Va. 161 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Feb 11, 1997

for official acts if the involved conduct did not violate clearly established laws of which a reasonable official would have known. … acts if the involved conduct did not violate clearly established laws of which a reasonable official would have known.

Phillips v. Wiseman

64 O.B.A.J. 2317 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 20, 1993

The defendant/Commissioner now seeks a writ of prohibition in this Court based upon the doctrine of qualified immunity. The defendant/State of Oklahoma also claims immunity. … Trimble, 795 P.2d 1035 (Okla.1990) we explained that qualified immunity shields an official from damages insofar as the official’s conduct did not violate any clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Ronald C. Ayersman and Ronald C. "Mackey" Ayersman, Assistant State Fire Marshal v. Tammy S. Wratchford and Michael W. Wratchford and West Virginia State Fire Marshal's Office v. Tammy S. Wratchford and Michael W. Wratchford

West Virginia Supreme Court · May 20, 2022

rights that may be enforced via civil suits, so it cannot be a “clearly established statutory or constitutional right or law,” the violation of which can overcome qualified immunity. … clearly established statutory or constitutional rights or laws . . . or are otherwise fraudulent, malicious, or oppressive[.]”