Case law

Betty Jean Triplett v. Washington Dept of Social & Health Services

193 Wash. App. 497 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 21, 2016

The prevailing view is that once the defense of qualified immunity is properly raised, the plaintiff has the burden of showing the defendant violated the plaintiffs clearly established federal right. MARTIN A. … Clearly established law The individual defendants are still qualifiedly immune from liability, even for a constitutional violation, if their conduct was objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law

Martin v. Curry

13 Neb. Ct. App. 171 · Nebraska Court of Appeals · Dec 7, 2004

, had qualified immunity. … “Whether an official may prevail in his or her qualified immunity defense depends upon the ‘ “objective reasonableness of [his or her] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.” ’ ” Id.

McIntire v. State

419 N.W.2d 799 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Feb 23, 1988

In Harlow the Supreme Court further explained the applicable test: If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing … Whether the law was clearly established is a threshold question; if the trial court finds the law was not clearly established when the conduct occurred, “the inquiry ceases” and “the official is entitled to summary judgment

Petcu v. State

121 Wash. App. 36 · 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 Wn.2d at 65-66 .

John Wayne Charleston v. Clint Allen, Criminal District Attorney of Cass County

420 S.W.3d 134 · Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana) · Oct 15, 2012

—Tyler 1996, no writ) (prosecutor entitled only to qualified immunity in making statements to press). 5 Under the federal standards for qualified immunity, a prosecutor would be “shielded from liability for civil damages … insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Bell v. City of Albany

210 Ga. App. 371 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Sep 23, 1993

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … App. 798 ( 432 SE2d 593 ) (1993). 4 Qualified immunity is a question of law for the court. Stone v.

Andrews v. Crump

144 N.C. App. 68 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 5, 2001

They may, however, raise the defense of qualified immunity to section 1983 claims. Id. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

City of San Juan v. Gonzalez

22 S.W.3d 69 · Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Jun 1, 2000

the officers are entitled to qualified immunity under federal law as their actions in effecting appellee’s arrest were lawful in light of clearly established law and the information possessed by the officers at the time … If there is, we determine whether the government official’s “actions were objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law,” entitling him to qualified immunity. Id.

Farrell Ex Rel. Farrell v. Transylvania County Bd. of Educ.

199 N.C. App. 173 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 18, 2009

As this Court stated, “ ‘[qualified immunity protects public officials from personal liability for performing official, discretionary functions if the conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Because Wohler’s alleged conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right to bodily integrity, of which defendant would have known, she is not entitled to the benefits of federal qualified immunity.

Forney v. Purvis

190 Ga. App. 192 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Jan 13, 1989

“[T]he appealable issue [on a claim for qualified immunity] is a purely legal one: whether the facts alleged (by the' plaintiff, or, in some cases, the defendant) support a claim of violation of clearly established law.” … If, as plaintiff alleges, defendants denied her equal protection of the law because of her union membership, then their conduct was violative of clearly established law and would not be protected by qualified immunity from

Harvey v. Nichols

260 Ga. App. 187 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Feb 27, 2003

The doctrine of official immunity, also known as qualified immunity, offers public officers and employees limited protection from suit in their personal capacity. … Qualified immunity protects individual public agents from personal liability for discretionary actions taken within the scope of their official authority, and done without wilfulness, malice, or corruption.

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

Tuchman v. State

89 Conn. App. 745 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Jun 24, 2005

The plaintiffs claim that the court improperly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the action on the basis of the doctrines of sovereign immunity, qualified immunity and statutory immunity. … “Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

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.

Schlicher v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners

363 Ill. App. 3d 869 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 6, 2006

The Supreme Court has explained the concept of a “clearly established” constitutional right in the context of a qualified immunity claim as follows: “ ‘[Cjlearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity means that … Because “it is well established that the qualified immunity doctrine does not apply to official capacity claims” (Ruffino v.

J.P. v. D.P.

260 So. 3d 862 · Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · Mar 30, 2018

App. 2008) ("Although these incidents were somewhat remote in time, they still evidence the character of the paternal grandmother and clearly and convincingly prove that she was not fit and qualified to receive and care for … App. 2012) (" ' "We should not equate the filing of 'court papers' and the taking of legal positions with the establishment of human relationships." ' [ Ex parte J.W.B. , 933 So.2d 1081 , 1092 (Ala. 2005) ](quoting K.W.J.

Fleming v. City of Bridgeport

92 Conn. App. 400 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Nov 29, 2005

Therefore, in reviewing . . . claims of qualified immunity we are bound by federal precedent, and may not expand or contract the contours of the immunity available to government officials.” … “Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Harris v. Parrish

552 S.W.3d 475 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jun 6, 2018

right is clearly established, and raised a genuine issue of fact as to whether the official should have known that the conduct violated such established rights. … We hold that Parrish's constitutional rights were clearly established prior to Harris's actions in question. In Shannon v.

Jennings v. Hinkle

115 N.M. 387 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Mar 26, 1993

We hold that the officers did not violate clearly established law and, thus, had qualified immunity from Section 1983 liability. Accordingly, we affirm. … They retain the shield of qualified immunity as long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.