Case law

ODOM v. PENSKE TRUCK LEASING CO.

415 P.3d 521 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 13, 2018

did not clearly and explicitly provide. … Subsection 5(A) imposes no other burden or condition on Penske Truck Leasing to establish and to enforce its immunity. This is the answer I would give to 10th Circuit's certified question.

Ozarks Unlimited Resources Cooperative, Inc. v. Daniels

333 Ark. 214 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 14, 1998

Roper, 302 Ark. 125, 128 , 788 S.W.2d 470 (1990), we noted that: “The appealability of a denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity from suit is clearly established.” Id. … Accordingly, the instant case falls within the well-settled line of cases permitting review of summary-judgment denials based on qualified immunity, and warrants our review.

Guffey v. State

103 Wash. 2d 144 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1984

Secondly, we establish an additional narrow immunity defense under specified conditions. Finally, we determine whether the trooper in the present case should be protected by this immunity. … A review of the circumstances under which such qualified immunity has been found thus far in Washington is essential to an understanding of the qualified immunity established today.

Cox v. Martin

423 S.W.3d 75 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 27, 2012

, A PERSON SUBMIT TO THE STATE A WRITTEN CERTIFICATION FROM A PHYSICIAN THAT HE OR SHE IS SUFFERING FROM A QUALIFYING MEDICAL CONDITION; ESTABLISHING AN INITIAL LIST OF QUALIFYING MEDICAL CONDITIONS; DIRECTING THE DEPARTMENT … MARIJUANA PROGRAM; SETTING CERTAIN LIMITATIONS ON THE USE OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA BY QUALIFYING PATIENTS; ESTABLISHING AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE FOR THE MEDICAL USE OF MARIJUANA; ESTABLISHING REGISTRATION AND OPERATION REQUIREMENTS

Mathis v. Sauser

942 P.2d 1117 · Alaska Supreme Court · Jul 18, 1997

Government officials performing discretionary functions enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages if their conduct does not violate “clearly established” constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … In determining whether qualified immunity exists, the relevant inquiry is whether a reasonable official could have believed the challenged conduct was lawful in light of clearly established law and the facts of the case.

St. Vrain Valley School District RE-1J v. A.R.L. ex rel. Loveland

325 P.3d 1014 · Supreme Court of Colorado · May 19, 2014

O'Donnell here, for the purposes of governmental immunity). … An appellate court will not disturb these factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous. Swieckowski, 934 P.2d at 1384 .

Boone v. Huntington & Guerry Electric Co.

311 S.C. 550 · Supreme Court of South Carolina · May 3, 1993

We need not address Electric Company’s argument that it qualifies as a statutory employee under § 42-1-540. 1 The inquiry whether a subcontractor qualifies as a statutory employee is relevant to determine an owner’s workers … The exception to immunity in § 42-1-540 applies to a subcontractor hired by the injured employee’s employer whether or not that subcontractor qualifies as a statutory employee.

Hughes v. New Hampshire Division of Aeronautics

152 N.H. 30 · Supreme Court of New Hampshire · Mar 22, 2005

We have employed a three-part test to determine whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity: (1) whether a plaintiff has established a constitutional violation; (2) whether that right was clearly established … Therefore, Hodgdon and Bradley are entitled to qualified immunity; they cannot be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in their individual capacities.

Bishop v. Miche

137 Wash. 2d 518 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 25, 1999

We said in Taggart that this duty arises only when it has been shown that the parole officer lacks absolute and qualified immunity for the actions claimed to be negligent. *525 However, we later held that qualified personal … Thus, following Savage , a finding of qualified personal immunity on the part of the individual officer does not end the inquiry.

G. B. List v. Commonwealth

118 Pa. 322 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 3, 1888

The privileges and immunities secured to citizens of each state in the several states, by this clause, are those privileges and immunities which are common to the citizens in the latter states under their constitution and … established in the case we have referred to,.

HERTOG, EX REL., SAH v. City of Seattle

979 P.2d 400 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1999

If so, Hoover would enjoy qualified personal immunity but the City would not. … Nor, as noted, is the City entitled to the benefit of any qualified personal immunity enjoyed by the probation counselor.

Todd Kent, Mark Spessert, Christopher Kutcher, City of Charleston Town, Bradley Meacham, Glenna Hosby-Brown, William Roper, and City of Ranson v. Christopher Sullivan

West Virginia Supreme Court · May 9, 2024

Code § 29-12A-1 et seq. would apply; (4) the matter involves discretionary judgments, decisions, and/or actions; (5) the acts or omissions are in violation of clearly established … Thus, the circuit court’s overarching error here was in analyzing the immunity issue based on the principles set forth in Estate of Grove – principles established to govern common law qualified immunity cases involving

Awakuni v. Awana

115 Haw. 126 · Hawaii Supreme Court · Aug 24, 2007

Plaintiffs contend that “[e]ven if the EUTF trustees may qualify for sovereign or other immunity (i.e., pursuant to HRS § 26-35.5(b)), the evident intention of HRS § 87A-25(4) was to mandate a waiver of immunity as to fiduciary … was intended for purposes of analyzing the qualified privilege in a claim for defamation, not for immunity pursuant to HRS § 26-35.5.

LaShay v. Department of Social & Rehabilitation Services

160 Vt. 60 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Jan 15, 1993

We have recognized two degrees of official immunity: absolute immunity and qualified immunity. Id. at 184-85, 559 A.2d at 1078 . … “Good faith exists where an official’s acts did not violate clearly established rights of which the official reasonably should have known.” Murray v. White, 155 Vt. 621, 630 , 587 A.2d 975, 980 (1991).

Bankston v. Pass Road Tire Center, Inc.

611 So. 2d 998 · Mississippi Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1992

Officers, like Rogers and Smith, are not absolutely immune from liability for their discretionary actions; they can be held liable for their discretionary actions if their conduct does violate a clearly established constitutional … Even if the impoundment was at their own discretion, they would enjoy a qualified immunity.

Bauman v. State, Division of Family & Youth Services

768 P.2d 1097 · Alaska Supreme Court · Jan 27, 1989

Similarly, the United States Supreme Court stated: Whether an official may prevail in his qualified immunity defense depends upon the objective reasonableness of his conduct as measured by reference to clearly established … Heckman’s affidavit satisfied his initial burden of establishing the absence of factual dispute and his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, based on qualified immunity. 1 Since the Baumans and R.J.W. did not demonstrate

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.

City of Fairbanks v. Rice

20 P.3d 1097 · Alaska Supreme Court · Oct 13, 2000

Federal qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Star Borough, 799 P.2d 295, 301 (Alaska 1990) (applying "clearly established" law test to discretionary function immunity claim under AS 09.65.070(d)(2)); Breck v.

State v. Copple

224 Neb. 672 · Nebraska Supreme Court · Feb 13, 1987

A statute is presumed to be constitutional and unconstitutionality must be clearly established before this court is authorized to declare it void. State v. Neal, 187 Neb. 413, 416 , 191 N.W.2d 458, 460 (1971). … A trial court’s finding that a prima facie case has been established concerning existence of a conspiracy will be upheld unless such finding is clearly erroneous. Cf. United States v.

Higgs v. DIST. COURT IN AND FOR DOUGLAS CO.

713 P.2d 840 · Supreme Court of Colorado · Jan 27, 1986

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."