Case law

Fegans v. Norris

351 Ark. 200 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 21, 2002

A motion for summary judgment based upon qualified immunity is precluded only when the plaintiff has asserted a constitutional violation, demonstrated the constitutional right is clearly established and raised a genuine issue … The appellee officials are immune from suit in this action because they did not violate clearly established principles of law of which a reasonable person would have knowledge.

Feingold v. Hill

360 Pa. Super. 539 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 11, 1987

With respect to Judge Hill, the law in Pennsylvania is well established that judges are absolutely immune from liability for damages when performing judicial acts, even if their actions are in error or performed with malice … Clearly such activity would have fallen within the parameters of Mr. Bala’s duties. As such, Mr. Bala is immune from suit in the instant matter under the protection of quasi-judicial immunity.

Governmental Interinsurance Exchange v. Judge

Illinois Supreme Court · May 18, 2006

City of Aurora, 71 Ill. 2d 1, 11 (1978) (AThis court has clearly established the rule that once a governmental unit >adopts a plan in the making of public improvements,= it owes a duty to a plaintiff to maintain those improvements … AThe above regulations clearly establish that, contrary to the dissent=s statement *** a broken yellow line does indicate a passing zone.

Robbins v. IOWA-ILLINOIS GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

160 N.W.2d 847 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Sep 5, 1968

In determining the extent of the qualified immunity granted in the first clause of rule 141(a) the key words are “injustice or undue hardship.” Sanders v. Ayrhart, 89 Idaho 302 , 404 P.2d 589, 594 . … We are unable to determine from the interrogatory as framed whether plaintiffs seek to secure matters given absolute protection under category (2), matters given qualified immunity under category (1) or both.

162373_134_01.Pdf

Michigan Supreme Court · Jul 31, 2023

immunity rather than complete immunity applies where the prosecutor is acting as a police officer and not in the role of an advocate) (quotation marks and citation omitted). … The lead opinion does not address this important qualifier.

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."

In Re STATE of Texas Ex Rel. David P. WEEKS

391 S.W.3d 117 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jan 16, 2013

for mandamus relief when the factual scenario has never been precisely addressed but the principle of law has been clearly established. *123 B. … establishes that proposition.

Marlin v. Bill Rich Construction, Inc.

198 W. Va. 635 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1996

Thus, appel-lee argues that the Tort Claims Act clearly contemplates immunity in the instant claim. … The complaint alleged derivative claims for loss of love, society, comfort, companionship, and services that would not survive immunity under W.Va.Code § 29-12A-5(a)(11), if the Board could establish such immunity as set

Paduch v. City of Johnson City

896 S.W.2d 767 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Mar 27, 1995

Mandamus is a summary remedy, extraordinary in its nature, and to be applied only *770 when a right has been clearly established. Peerless, 14 S.W.2d at 733 . … If the right be doubtful, it must be first established in some other form of action; mandamus will not lie to establish as well as enforce a claim of uncertain merit.

Giambrone v. Douglas

874 So. 2d 1046 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Aug 1, 2003

Douglas did not meet his burden of establishing that his actions and decisions involved functions that entitled him to immunity. B. … Furlow and Long met their burden of establishing that their actions and decisions involved functions entitling them to immunity.

Melville v. Southward

14 Brief Times Rptr. 608 · Supreme Court of Colorado · May 14, 1990

Hogan, 292 Or. 154 , 637 P.2d 114 (1981) (orthopedic surgeons were properly qualified to testify on standard of care for podiatric surgery where foundation evidence established that orthopedic and podiatric procedure, practice … Clearly, when a proper foundation establishes that the expert witness, by reasons of knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, is so substantially familiar with the standard of care applicable to the defendant

Michael v. State

115 P.3d 517 · Alaska Supreme Court · Jun 9, 2005

Applying the clearly erroneous standard of review, the court of appeals affirmed the superior court’s rejection of Michael’s proposed mitigating factors. … ’s rejection of Michael’s proposed mitigating factors under a clearly erroneous standard.

Commonwealth v. Packer

568 Pa. 481 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 31, 2002

This interpretation is contrary to the well-established cannon of construction that courts should generally apply qualifying words or phrases to the words immediately preceding them. 1 Pa.C.S. § 1903; Midboe v. … Qualifying words “do not extend to or include other words, phrases, or clauses more remote, unless such extension or inclusion is clearly required by the intent or meaning of the context or disclosed by an examination of

Monongalia County Commission A/K/A Monongalia County Sheriff's Department and John Doe Deputy v. Amanda F. Stewart, Individually and/or as Administrator of the Estate of John D. Stewart, Jr.

West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 14, 2024

Code § 29-12A-5 (establishing immunities from liability). … Indeed, “It is well established that . . . common law qualified immunity [is] available only for the State, its agencies, officials, and/or employees.” Kent v.

Hazle v. Ford Motor Co.

464 Mich. 456 · Michigan Supreme Court · Jul 3, 2001

Therefore, we hold that a plaintiff is not required to provide evidence that he is at least as qualified as the successful candidate in order to establish a prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas. … We caution the bench and bar not to rely on Lytle for the proposition that a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination can be established merely by providing evidence that a qualified minority candidate was rejected

Jackson v. Mercy Health Center, Inc.

64 O.B.A.J. 3587 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 30, 1993

The Hospital was clearly within the Act’s protection when its personnel escorted the visitor out of the surgery area, seated him on the bed in the hallway, and then redirected their attention to the wife. … The Hospital was clearly responding to an apparent emergency that called for immediate action. THE COURT OF APPEALS’ OPINION IS VACATED AND THE TRIAL COURT’S JUDGMENT REINSTATED AND AFFIRMED.

Morais v. Yee

162 Vt. 366 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Jul 15, 1994

We agree that defendants should not have been granted summary judgment on the state law claims, but conclude that qualified immunity does not apply in this case. … However, qualified immunity does not extend to situations in which the legislature establishes a clear duty and liability for a breach of that duty.

People v. Malchow

193 Ill. 2d 413 · Illinois Supreme Court · Sep 21, 2000

These factors clearly weigh in favor of the conclusion that the Notification Law’s effect is not so punitive that it defeats the legislature’s intent. … This limited distribution clearly is not analogous to stigmatization penalties such as branding, stockading, pillorying, or banishment.

Waldron v. Roark

902 N.W.2d 204 · Nebraska Supreme Court · Oct 13, 2017

Immunity. In a qualified immunity analysis, the dispositive question is whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established. … Hillan, The Not-So-Clearly Established Qualified Immunity Doctrine, The Nebraska Lawyer, March/April 2017, at 15 (discussing history and details of qualified immunity doctrine).  2 Waldron v.

Carter v. United States

684 A.2d 331 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 24, 1996

to the crucial defense witness involved who is shown to be the only witness who, if believed, would clearly establish a reasonable doubt on the defendant’s guilt. … If immunity of the crucial defense witness is then sought, the defendant must first establish to the trial court’s satisfaction that the proposed testimony is (a) material, (b) clearly exculpatory, (c) non-cumulative, and