Case law

Witzke v. City of Bismarck

718 N.W.2d 586 · North Dakota Supreme Court · Jul 18, 2006

of the State’s case at trial, and other conduct intimately associated with the judicial process, but that prosecutors have only the protection of qualified immunity when functioning in the role of an administrator or investigative … Absolute immunity defeats a suit at the outset, while an official with qualified immunity must establish his or her conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Jackson v. Dackman Co.

422 Md. 357 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 24, 2011

Thus, the application of traditional or well-established immunities from suit has been held not to violate Article 19. See, e.g., Rios v. … Preliminarily, it should be noted that the immunity granted to defendants by §§ 6-828, 6-835, 6-836, and 6-836.1 of the Act is not, in any respect, a traditional or well-established *381 immunity from personal injury actions

Purzycki v. Town of Fairfield

244 Conn. 101 · Supreme Court of Connecticut · Mar 17, 1998

The defendants moved to set aside the jury verdict, asserting that the plaintiffs failed to prove their claim that the imminent harm exception to the qualified governmental immunity doctrine applied to this case. … [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, as opposed to a discretionary act.”

State v. Dachtler

318 N.W.2d 769 · North Dakota Supreme Court · Apr 29, 1982

Did the district court err when it ruled that Aaron Rash was qualified as an expert in glass comparison analysis? 2. … In this case, the State clearly had a reasonable explanation for refusing to produce Gray’s testimony through a request for immunity — the State believed that Gray was involved in the burglary, and the potential for charging

DelMonico v. Traynor

38 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 106 · Supreme Court of Florida · Feb 14, 2013

A qualified privilege requires the plaintiff to establish express malice. … Cole, 950 So.2d 380, 383 (Fla.2007), characterized Myers as establishing “the principle of the litigation privilege in Florida, essentially providing legal immunity for actions that occur in judicial proceedings.”

Eastburn v. Regional Fire Protection Authority

7 Cal. Rptr. 3d 552 · California Supreme Court · Dec 18, 2003

In our view, Zepeda correctly held that the section indeed applies, and provides a qualified or limited immunity to such persons. … shielded by the qualified immunity of Health and Safety Code section 1799.107.

COM., TRANSP. CABINET, DEPT. HWYS v. Sexton

256 S.W.3d 29 · Kentucky Supreme Court · Jun 19, 2008

An agency’s “routine duties” will typically be established by statutes or regulations that very clearly and specifically set forth those actions that the agency must take. 5 For example, in Collins we found that mine site … Since this was clearly a discretionary act, the Commonwealth has not waived sovereign immunity for any alleged negligence in performing this act.

Uinta County v. Pennington

286 P.3d 138 · Wyoming Supreme Court · Oct 1, 2012

/d. [114] In order to establish a claim of qualified immunity, the claimant must prove; 1) the officer was acting within the seope of his or her duties; 2) the officer was acting in good faith; 3) the officer's acts were … record when a public official asserts qualified immunity.

Martel v. Metropolitan District Commission

275 Conn. 38 · Supreme Court of Connecticut · Aug 16, 2005

Because the parties in the present matter assume that the immunity provided by § 52-557n (a) (2) (B) is identical to a municipal employee’s qualified immunity for discretionary acts at common law, we also assume, without … and qualified immunity; (2) the immunity afforded by General Statutes § 25-43c; (3) the immunity afforded by General Statutes § 52-557g; (4) the immunity afforded by General Statutes § 52-557j; and (5) the plaintiffs own

Murphy v. AA Mathews

841 S.W.2d 671 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 18, 1992

Although the language of Cutler did not explicitly limit the immunity to defamation cases, later English cases clearly establish its narrow applicability. … If one of those two requirements were lacking, the witness only enjoyed a qualified or conditional privilege, which could be vitiated by establishing malice. Id., 61 S.W. at 796 .

Thompson v. City of Minneapolis

707 N.W.2d 669 · Supreme Court of Minnesota · Jan 10, 2006

Rather, the specific conduct challenged was the ministerial decision of whether to instruct the student to make rip cuts with the blade guard disengaged as clearly dictated by an established protocol. Id. at 656-57 . … Anderson, the Eighth Circuit stated that, in the context of qualified immunity, a case should be submitted to the jury when the facts giving rise to the applicability of qualified immunity were disputed.

Ham v. Greene

248 Conn. 508 · Supreme Court of Connecticut · May 4, 1999

Thus, even where the law and the scope of permissible official conduct are clearly established, the defense of qualified immunity will protect a government official if it was objectively reasonable for him to believe his … New Haven, supra, 950 F.2d 870 , first concluded that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law only if, on the facts found, their conduct *523 either did not violate “ ‘clearly established . .

Trammell v. Wright

489 S.W.3d 636 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 7, 2016

For example, “qualified immunity” is defined as the “[a]ffirmative defense which shields public officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … A motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity is precluded only when the plaintiff has asserted a constitutional violation, demonstrated that the constitutional right is clearly established, and raised a genuine

Simons v. Marshall

369 Ark. 447 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 26, 2007

In this regard, Simons argues that Marshall failed to allege facts sufficient to establish malice and in the absence of malice, he is entitled to qualified immunity under section 19-10-305(a). … There, this court recognized that an official is immune from suit if his actions did not violate clearly established principles of law of which a reasonable person would have knowledge.

Jaggers v. Zolliecoffer

290 Ark. 250 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 3, 1986

was not entitled to a qualified immunity. … Forsyth, supra, it is clearly stated that the qualified immunity of federal officials is an immunity from suit, citing Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982).

Grady v. Town of Somers

294 Conn. 324 · Supreme Court of Connecticut · Dec 22, 2009

New Haven, supra, 767 ; and subsection (a) (1) (A) of § 52-557n “clearly and expressly abrogates the traditional common-law doctrine in this state that municipalities are immune from suit for torts committed by their employees … accrues to *347 the municipality when the employee successfully establishes qualified immunity, by permitting the municipality to avoid liability for indemnification, the defense is intended to benefit the employee in the

Mercer County Board of Education v. Holly Ruskauff

West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 4, 2019

First, the BOE argues that it is entitled to qualified immunity and that qualified immunity bars negligence claims against governmental officials. … Accordingly, the BOE is entitled to qualified immunity; and, as such, we need not address the BOE’s other assignments of error.

McCollum v. Garrett

880 S.W.2d 530 · Kentucky Supreme Court · Sep 1, 1994

During the time in which McCollum essentially acted as an investigator, the protection available to him was qualified immunity. … . -, 113 S.Ct. 2606 , 125 L.Ed.2d 209 (1993), as follows: ... government officials are not subject to damages liability for the performance of their discretionary functions when "their conduct does not violate clearly established

Mandel v. O'HARA

320 Md. 103 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 27, 1990

Although the Governor of West Virginia is intimately involved in the state’s budget process, his participation clearly does not qualify for .legislative immunity under Supreme Court of Virginia . … Thus, the Court’s reference to a state’s entire legislative power was simply to point out that the case was clearly one for absolute legislative immunity.

Matthews v. ALABAMA AGR. AND MECHANICAL UNIV.

787 So. 2d 691 · Supreme Court of Alabama · May 26, 2000

Matthews alleges that the university employees violated "clearly established Constitutional and statutory rights," that they "exceed[ed] the scope of their statutory and administrative authority," and that they acted willfully … or to qualified/substantive/ discretionary-function immunity.