Case law

State ex rel. Grant County Commission v. Judge Nelson

West Virginia Supreme Court · Mar 23, 2021

Prince George’s County, Md., 309 F.3d 224, 229 (4th Cir. 2002) (“Because qualified immunity is an immunity from having to litigate, as contrasted with an immunity from liability … Traditional appellate review of a qualified immunity ruling cannot achieve the intended goal of an immunity ruling: “the right not to be subject to the burden of trial.”

Vent v. Johnson

303 S.W.3d 46 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 26, 2009

We disagree and hold that the qualified immunity afforded by section 21-9-301 must be asserted and proven as an affirmative defense. … In addition, in discussing the difference between absolute immunity and qualified immunity, this court has stated (in a somewhat different context) that, while absolute immunity “bars a suit at the outset,” qualified immunity

Joseph W. Democko, Donald Jones and James Samis v. Iowa Department of Natural Resources

840 N.W.2d 281 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Dec 6, 2013

Iowa Code chapter 483A establishes a framework for the issuance of hunting and fishing licenses in Iowa. … In Hoeven, the Eighth Circuit implied certain property rights established under state law may be fundamental.

Soong v. University of Hawaii at Hilo

72 Haw. 586 · Hawaii Supreme Court · Feb 11, 1992

right which was clearly *589 established at the time the defendant acted. … Under Siegert the protected right must be clearly established.

Dobson v. McClennen

238 Ariz. 389 · Arizona Supreme Court · Nov 20, 2015

A. ¶ 8 The AMMA broadly immunizes registered qualifying patients for their medical use of marijuana, providing: A registered qualifying patient ... is not subject to arrest, prosecution or penalty in any manner, or denial … When read together, the statutory provisions suggest that the AMMA gives qualifying patients a limited defense rather than a general immunity in (A)(3) prosecutions. ¶ 18 We reject, however, Petitioners’ argument that qualifying

Kliesrath v. Estate of Davis

298 Ga. 872 · Supreme Court of Georgia · Apr 26, 2016

Appellants are four police officers who moved for summary judgment on the basis of official and qualified immunity. … This Court, however, recently reiterated the rule that we established in Turner v.

Torres v. Damicis

853 A.2d 1233 · Supreme Court of Rhode Island · Jun 24, 2004

We concluded that “[a]ny damages caused by the alleged negligence of a municipal budding inspector during the performance of his or her employment, therefore, qualifies for the tort immunity provided by the general public … Unless Torres can prove that his circumstances qualify under one of the exceptions to the public duty doctrine, we see no reason to depart from this general grant of immunity.

Knapper v. Connick

681 So. 2d 944 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Oct 15, 1996

Distinguishing between absolute immunity, which will defeat a suit at the outset, and qualified immunity, which depends on circumstances and motivations which often must be established by evidence at trial, the Court concluded … But the alternative of qualifying a prosecutor's immunity would disserve the broader public interest.

Green River District Health Deparment v. Wigginton

764 S.W.2d 475 · Kentucky Supreme Court · Jan 19, 1989

Our Court held that the purchase of indemnifying insurance by the governmental entity, per se, did not establish a right to sue the governmental entity which was otherwise immune. … We held that “the statute clearly contemplates a limited waiver of governmental immunity to the extent of the insurance coverage.” Id. at 40 .

Cameron v. Lang

274 Ga. 122 · Supreme Court of Georgia · Jun 25, 2001

OFFICIAL (QUALIFIED) IMMUNITY 1. … issue of qualified immunity in favor of the issue of causation.

Lamb v. Bloom

159 Vt. 633 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Jan 12, 1993

White, 155 Vt. 621 , 587 A.2d 975 (1991), which held that we *634 have collateral order jurisdiction over an appeal of a denial of summary judgment rejecting a claim of qualified immunity. … Murray holds that good faith exists “where an official’s acts did not violate clearly established rights of which the official reasonably should have known.” 155 Vt. at 630 , 587 A.2d at 980 .

Washington v. Whitaker

317 S.C. 108 · Supreme Court of South Carolina · Dec 19, 1994

Officer Whitaker — Qualified Immunity Officer Whitaker contends he was entitled to the defense of qualified immunity. We disagree. … We affirm the denial of summary judgment as to qualified immunity. D.

Conklin v. Cohen

287 So. 2d 56 · Supreme Court of Florida · Dec 5, 1973

Furthermore, it is clear that the owners did not qualify as "contractors" or "statutory employers," within the foregoing definitions thereof. … [owner's] negligence," clearly stated a cause of action against the owners, and, as clearly, were sufficient to withstand the owners' Motion to Dismiss. II.

Commonwealth v. Scott

503 Pa. 624 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 30, 1983

When the Commonwealth refused to grant immunity, the trial court found that although it did not have the power to grant judicial immunity to Hill, a new trial was warranted based on the contents of the unsworn post-trial … When dissecting a double hearsay statement, the reliability and trustworthiness of each declarant must be independently established.

Ballantyne v. Champion Builders, Inc.

47 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 852 · Texas Supreme Court · Jul 9, 2004

Federal courts recognize a qualified immunity for public officials, which is analogous although not identical to our official immunity. … Qualified immunity protects governmental officers with discretionary authority from liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Leang v. Jersey City Board of Education

198 N.J. 557 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 16, 2009

The panel concluded that their actions fell outside the protections of qualified immunity because they violated plaintiffs clearly established Fourteenth Amendment rights to liberty and due process. See Saucier v. … We begin with a brief overview of the TCA and the qualified immunity it confers.

Merrill v. West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources

219 W. Va. 151 · West Virginia Supreme Court · May 12, 2006

Va.Code, 29-12A-1, et seq., is entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability for official acts if the involved conduct did not violate clearly established laws of which a reasonable official would have known. … DHHR was entitled to qualified immunity because Appellants had failed to adduce even a scintilla of evidence that DHHR had violated any clearly established law.

Taylor v. West Virginia Department of Health & Human resources

237 W. Va. 549 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Apr 14, 2016

Therefore, to the extent that petitioners have established sufficient evidence that the challenged employment actions were a violation of clearly established statutory or constitutional rights or laws of which a reasonable … ’ claims are not barred by qualified immunity.

Love v. Harlem Irrigation District

245 Mont. 443 · Montana Supreme Court · Dec 4, 1990

The Irrigation District is clearly a “governmental entity” within the meaning of § 2-9-111, MCA. … Harlem Irrigation District is clearly a governmental entity immune from suit under these definitions. *447 Under § 2-9-111(3), MCA, the commissioners individually are immune as members of a legislative body who are immune

Smith v. OUR LADY OF LAKE HOSP.

639 So. 2d 730 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Sep 15, 1994

immunity, the language of the statute would have clearly reflected this intent." … Employing the former approach and tailoring the definition to fit the qualified immunity provision, courts have found that lack of malice or good faith can be proven by establishing a reasonable basis for the conduct.