Case law

Alachua General Hosp., Inc. v. Zimmer USA, Inc.

403 So. 2d 1087 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Sep 11, 1981

litigation is "closely related" to the previous, terminated litigation. [2] However, the weight of modern authority clearly provides that work product retains its qualified immunity after the original litigation terminates … Smith in his investigation of the Hospital fire was work product as to the initial wrongful death litigation, and retains its qualified immunity as to the present litigation.

Gleason v. Metropolitan Council Transit Operations

563 N.W.2d 309 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Aug 5, 1997

In Section 1983 cases, whether an official is protected by qualified immunity “turns on the ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the action * * * assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the … legally reasonable or that no “clearly established law” prohibited the conduct.

Thomas v. Bracey

940 S.W.2d 340 · Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · Feb 12, 1997

To grant immunity short of absolute privilege to communications relating to pending or proposed litigation, and thus subject an attorney to liability for defamation, might tend to lessen an attorney’s efforts on behalf of … The letter was clearly written in an effort to secure the rights of appellee’s client, the executor of the estate, in property and income belonging to the estate.

Sykes v. Rutgers

308 N.J. Super. 265 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 23, 1998

We need not grapple with this issue because we have concluded that regardless of Rutgers’ entitlement to Tort Claims Act immunity, it is clearly entitled to the common law immunity established in Miehl v. … In the absence of a clearly established landlord-tenant relationship, our courts have previously rejected attempts by slip and fall plaintiffs to classify a particular public entity as akin to a commercial landlord in order

Ex Parte Juan Antonio Molina Valencia v. .

Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · Apr 17, 2024

App. 2013) (“[A]n issue of first impression can sometimes qualify for mandamus relief when the factual scenario has never been precisely addressed but the principle of law has been clearly established.”). … ); Weeks, 391 S.W.3d at 122 (holding mandamus relief is available if “the principle of law has been clearly established”).

Vermette v. Ludwig

707 So. 2d 742 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 10, 1997

As to the § 1983 claims, the officers grounded their summary judgment motion on an assertion of qualified immunity from suit. … If the public official's conduct did not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right, the official is immune." Stephens, 702 So.2d at 526 .

Dan Turner and Henry Bonaparte v. Troy Perry

Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · Jan 27, 2009

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects governmental officials performing discretionary functions from suit if their actions were objectively reasonable in the light of then clearly-established law. Anderson v. … Appellants contend that they nevertheless are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate a clearly established right protecting Perry = s speech.

Town of Port Deposit v. Petetit

113 Md. App. 401 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 30, 1997

Whether a defendant possesses a qualified immunity is ultimately an issue of law for the court to determine. … of an absolute immunity defense or a Harlow type of qualified immunity defense; the issues would be legal ones.

Williams v. O'Brien

78 Mass. App. Ct. 169 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Oct 25, 2010

It is well established that the MCRA incorporates the standard of immunity for public officials developed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , and accordingly “public officials are not liable under the [MCRA] for their discretionary … acts, unless they have violated a right under Federal or State constitutional or statutory law that was ‘clearly established’ at the time.”

Joe Richardson Jr v. Oakland County Animal Shelter

Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 10, 2020

“An official has qualified immunity from suits under 42 USC 1983 when the official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … question was clearly established, to analyze first).

Clay Blanchard v. City of Des Moines

Court of Appeals of Iowa · Dec 4, 2024

immunity available to the [City].” … Those questions are to be resolved early because qualified immunity not only serves as protection from liability—it protects government defendants from the risks and distractions of trial as well. See Harlow v.

Service Employment Redevelopment v. Fort Worth Independent School District

Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth) · Mar 3, 2005

code did not clearly and unambiguously waive school district’s immunity from suit); City of Dallas v. … provides the “requisite clarity to establish a waiver of immunity from suit”). 8: San Antonio ISD , 2004 WL 2450919 , at *2-3 (mem. op.)

Service Employment Redevelopment v. Fort Worth Independent School District

Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth) · Mar 3, 2005

code did not clearly and unambiguously waive school district’s immunity from suit); City of Dallas v. … provides the “requisite clarity to establish a waiver of immunity from suit”). 8.

Walden v. City of Seattle

77 Wash. App. 784 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 3, 1995

In an action under § 1983, government employees, including police officers, are afforded qualified immunity under federal law unless, in the performance of discretionary duties, their conduct violated " 'clearly established … Thus, entitlement to qualified immunity may be established as a matter of law on a motion for summary judgment or for a directed verdict. Robinson v. Seattle, 119 Wn.2d 34 , 830 P.2d 318 , cert. denied, 113 S.

Lewis v. Hat Corporation of America

150 A.2d 750 · Court of Chancery of Delaware · May 1, 1959

It is clearly established in Delaware that stockholder ratification of corporate action which is not per se void renders such action immune from minority stockholder attack, Fidanque v. … The proxy statement setting forth the matters to be acted on at the August 29 special meeting of stockholders clearly described the specific matter before the meeting to be approval of the agreement to purchase Champ Hats

Godin v. Corrections Corp. of America

Vermont Superior Court · Aug 25, 2017

We have recognized two degrees of official immunity: absolute immunity and qualified immunity. … White, 155 Vt. 621, 626–27 (1991) (“The desire in Levinsky to promote summary judgment resolution of qualified immunity claims is consistent with the perception that qualified immunity is indeed an immunity from the suit

K. Blackwell v. City of Pittsburgh

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 20, 2025

“Clearly established means that, at the time of 7 Thomas resolved the tension between federal notice pleading and qualified immunity’s “fact-specific inquiry.” … clearly established.

Hudson v. Vasquez

941 S.W.2d 334 · Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Feb 6, 1997

In order to establish the “good faith” element of his claim to summary judgment based on official immunity, Hudson was required to prove that a reasonably prudent police officer could have believed that the force used was … The state law standard for analyzing the “good faith” element of official immunity is “derived substantially from the test that has emerged under federal immunity law for claims of qualified immunity in section 1983 cases

Longval v. O'Toole

19 Mass. L. Rptr. 308 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Jan 28, 2005

Second, they assert that the complaint fails to allege facts constituting a violation of the plaintiffs “clearly established” rights, and that they therefore are entitled to qualified immunity. A. … Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 232 (1991) (right must be clearly established “at the time the defendant acted” to overcome defense of qualified immunity). The standard is purely an objective one. In Harlow v.

In re the Marriage of Nelson

Court of Appeals of Iowa · Oct 20, 2021

That year, Mick filed a pro se request to end his obligation because the children no longer qualified for support. … App. 2005) (“Clearly when a child support award is based on two qualifying children and one no longer qualifies, there has been a substantial change in circumstances.”); see also Iowa Code § 598.21C(1).