Case law

Wood v. City of Alamogordo

8 N.M. Ct. App. 43 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Feb 24, 2015

Qualified Immunity, Clearly Established Law, and Trujillo 2 {7} We begin by addressing Wood’s argument that the district court erred in 3 concluding he failed to establish that Trujillo violated clearly established … New Mexico Board of Examiners of Optometry to argue 10 that Trujillo violated clearly established law and is therefore not entitled to qualified 11 immunity. 1979-NMSC-005, 92 N.M. 414, 589 P.2d 198.

Carradine v. State

494 N.W.2d 77 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Dec 29, 1992

legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.” … Carradine failed to show the search of his person was conducted with excessive force or violated any clearly established law.

Jetta Elliott v. Dusty Morgan, in His Official Capacity as a Deputy Sheriff of Boone County

603 S.W.3d 570 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 13, 2020

Toward this end, police officers have qualified immunity from liability in their individual capacity unless they violate a clearly established right of which a reasonable person would know. Harlow v. … A motion for summary judgment based upon qualified immunity is precluded only when the plaintiff has asserted a constitutional violation, demonstrated that the constitutional right is clearly established

Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Romer

20 Brief Times Rptr. 1044 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Jun 27, 1996

clearly established statutory or *90 constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … What is “clearly established law” is a question of law, and a court engaging in review of a qualified immunity determination should therefore use “its full knowledge of its own [and other relevant] precedents.”

Bartlett v. Cinemark USA, Inc.

908 S.W.2d 229 · Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas) · Aug 11, 1995

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields an official performing discretionary functions from liability for damages under section 1983 so long as the official’s conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional … Sullivan, 4 F.3d 2, 12 (1st Cir.1993) (recognizing that Supreme Court has not clearly explained role of “discretionary functions” in qualified immunity analysis).

T.A. VS. ERICK MELGAR (L-0466-12, HUNTERDON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 19, 2018

Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (stating the doctrine of qualified immunity, protects government officials "from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … Thus, "a defendant cannot have qualified immunity if she was deliberately indifferent; a reasonable [prison official] could not believe that her actions comported with clearly established law

King v. State

242 Cal. App. 4th 245 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 18, 2015

But Defendants are only entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law if, taking the facts in the light most favorable to [the Plaintiff], they violated no clearly established constitutional right. … The state and Tawney premise their 26 qualified immunity claim on an extremely narrow, factually detailed view of what the clearly established law would be in this case.

Richmond Lapolla v. County of Union

449 N.J. Super. 288 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 28, 2017

The qualified immunity doctrine is an affirmative defense that "shields government officials from a suit for civil damages when 'their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … And, as we observed, "[q]ualified immunity is applicable unless the official's conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right." Id. at 28 (alteration in original).

Krupien v. Ritcey

112 N.E.3d 302 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Sep 26, 2018

"[T]he relevant inquiry on summary judgment as to the defense of qualified immunity is whether a reasonable official could have believed his actions were lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information possessed … established religious rights. 13 Therefore, the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity.

Haynes v. City of Beaumont

35 S.W.3d 166 · Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana) · Dec 8, 2000

Government officials performing discretionary functions have qualified immunity from liability for actions that do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … In practice, whether an official protected by qualified immunity may be held personally liable turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the action assessed in light of clearly established legal rules at the time the

Vaughan v. Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services

920 So. 2d 650 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 21, 2005

The essential qualified immunity issue in this appeal is whether, at the time of the incident, the law clearly established that a warrant was required for the search of Vaughan’s property and whether, by entering his yard … inspector to render the law, establishing that a warrant was needed, not yet clearly established.

Thomas v. McGinnis

239 Mich. App. 636 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 19, 2000

trial court granted the motion, finding that he was entitled to qualified immunity. … In an action brought under 42 USC 1983, a government official performing discretionary functions is entitled to qualified or good-faith immunity “ ‘insofar as [the official’s] conduct does not violate clearly established

Ande v. Rock

256 Wis. 2d 365 · Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · May 16, 2002

Qualified immunity overview. ¶ 15. … Wisconsin or federal case law *388 clearly establishing such an interest. Therefore, we conclude that qualified immunity bars all their federal claims. 16 CONCLUSION ¶ 22.

Showalter v. North Carolina Department of Crime Control & Public Safety

183 N.C. App. 132 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 1, 2007

Defendants argue the trial court erred in concluding that Trooper Emmons was not entitled to qualified immunity because the right which plaintiff alleges to have been violated was not clearly established at the time and because … The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials from personal liability “ ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Lumry v. State

Court of Appeals of Kansas · Oct 5, 2018

In claiming qualified immunity, Blecha first contends that the law was not clearly established that he could be personally liable for the FLSA claims; in other words, Blecha asserts that it was not clearly established in … N.Y. 2014) (defendant not entitled to qualified immunity since rules governing its conduct were clearly established, even if the rules about personal liability were not clearly established).

Kruger v. Grauer

173 Conn. App. 539 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Jun 6, 2017

Indeed, it is well established that conditioning immunity on the exercise of good faith is consistent with qualified immunity, not absolute immu- nity. See, e.g., Villages, LLC v. Longhi, 166 Conn. … and qualified immunity as grounds for summary judgment.

Petcu v. State

86 P.3d 1234 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 30, 2004

Finally, he argued that Smith was not entitled to qualified immunity because she violated Petcu's clearly established right to family unity. … Once a defendant asserts a defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that a clearly established constitutional right exists. Robinson, 119 Wash.2d at 65-66 , 830 P.2d 318 .

Edward Monk v. Alvernon Rogers

2021 Ark. App. 148 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 7, 2021

from damages under section 1983 7 unless they transgress “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Accordingly, Rogers is entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the facts alleged, construed in a light most favorable to Monk, establish a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly

Davis v. Town of Southern Pines

116 N.C. App. 663 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 1, 1994

“The test of qualified immunity for police officers sued under [section 1983] is whether [the officers’ conduct violated] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … In ruling on the defense of qualified immunity we must: (1) identify the specific right allegedly violated; (2) determine whether the right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the violation; and (3)

Newman v. Kock

274 S.W.3d 697 · Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · Aug 6, 2008

In response to Newman’s due process and due course claims, Appellees asserted the affirmative defenses of qualified immunity and official immunity and filed a traditional motion for summary judgment claiming that they established … that violated clearly established law.