Case law

Campbell v. Anderson

156 N.C. App. 371 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 4, 2003

of qualified immunity requires (1) identification of the specific right allegedly violated; (2) determining whether at the time of the alleged violation the right was clearly established; and (3) if so, then determining … Plaintiff sufficiently identified specific rights clearly established at the time of the violation and has met the first two prongs. The third prong of the test may require a factual analysis. See Roberts v.

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 .

Spacek v. Charles

928 S.W.2d 88 · Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · Jul 18, 1996

Whether an official has immunity for an allegedly unlawful official action generally turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the action as assessed in light of the legal rules clearly established at the time of the … QUALIFIED IMMUNITY UNDER THE TEXAS EDUCATION CODE In their third point of error, Spa-cek and Ramsey submit the trial court erred in denying their motion for summary judgment as to Charles’ state claims because they established

Fann v. Brailey

841 S.W.2d 833 · Court of Appeals of Tennessee · Jul 2, 1992

The Harlow court established an objective test to determine whether the state official enjoyed the qualified immunity: [Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil … have a clearly established right not to have information about her prior involvement with the law revealed to the public?”

Moody v. City of Key West

805 So. 2d 1018 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 26, 2001

In order for the plaintiffs to overcome the claim of qualified immunity, the plaintiffs must show that the defendant officers violated clearly established law of *1022 which a reasonable person would have known. … As the case law has explained: For the law to be clearly established to the point that qualified immunity does not apply, the law must have earlier been developed in such a concrete and factually defined context to make it

Dokman v. County of Hennepin

637 N.W.2d 286 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Dec 18, 2001

A governmental official performing discretionary functions is entitled to qualified immunity if the official’s conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory rights that a reasonable person would … Evaluating a claim of qualified immunity involves two inquiries: (1) “whether the plaintiff has alleged the violation of a clearly established constitutional right”; and (2) whether an officer could reasonably have believed

Feigin v. Digital Interactive Associates, Inc.

1999 Colo. J. C.A.R. 683 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Feb 4, 1999

Qualified Immunity The commissioner contends that the trial court erred in denying his summary judgment motion requesting a finding that he was immune from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity. We agree. … Whether a right is clearly established is a question of law, and, in reviewing a qualified immunity determination, we must use our full knowledge of all relevant precedents. Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc. v.

Rogerson v. Fitzpatrick

170 N.C. App. 387 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 17, 2005

Forsyth, for support of the proposition that when a court looks at qualified immunity, "[a]ll it need determine is a question of law." … Likewise, this Court has concluded that when 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

Doyle v. Lehi City

723 Utah Adv. Rep. 7 · Court of Appeals of Utah · Dec 6, 2012

“Qualified immunity shields [government] officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established … Accordingly, we address only the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity test and need not decide whether Lehi City officials violated the right alleged by Doyle.3 ¶23 “A Government official’s conduct violates

Eastland County Cooperative Dispatch v. Poyner

64 S.W.3d 182 · Texas Court of Appeals, 11th District (Eastland) · Jan 10, 2002

The motions for summary judgment implicated the doctrines of sovereign immunity, official immunity, and qualified immunity. … Was that general prohibition the source for clearly established law which the officers violated in this case?

Martin v. Hallum

2010 Ark. App. 193 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Feb 24, 2010

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, and raised a genuine

Sawyer v. Coleman

245 Ga. App. 37 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Jul 12, 2000

This requirement that plaintiff show a clearly established right is a strenuous one: For the law to be clearly established to the point that qualified immunity does not apply, the law must have earlier been developed in such … In establishing that a right is clearly established so as to overcome a claim of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must rely upon specific, supporting case law: General propositions have little to do with the concept of qualified

George Nicholas Parsons v. Wiley Tyler Raines and Calhoun County Commission

Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia · May 28, 2025

Generally stated, qualified immunity shields a government official performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages when the official’s conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional … Like the circuit court, we see no facts in the petitioner’s complaint demonstrating how the deputy violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Janaszak v. State

173 Wash. App. 703 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 7, 2013

law. 37 A claim of qualified immunity to a § 1983 action presents two issues: (1) do the facts make out a violation of a constitutional right and (2) was the right at issue “clearly established” at the time of the defendant … ’s alleged misconduct. 38 Qualified immunity applies unless the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established right. 39 Both issues present “ ‘essentially legal question [s]’ ” for the court to decide. 40 The court may

Gardner v. Rogers

224 Ga. App. 165 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Dec 20, 1996

“[T]he test for determining whether a defendant is protected from suit by the doctrine of qualified immunity is the objective reasonableness of the defendant’s conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law. … On a motion for summary judgment, if the applicable law was clearly established at the time the defendant acted, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law

Henke v. Superior Court

161 Ariz. 96 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · May 10, 1989

under the defendant’s version of the facts the defendant’s conduct violated clearly established law, whether the law clearly proscribed the actions the defendant claims he took. 472 U.S. at 528 , 105 S.Ct. at 2816 , 86 L.Ed … of qualified immunity.

Vest v. Easley

145 N.C. App. 70 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 17, 2001

They may, however, defend by raising the defense of qualified immunity. Id. … Qualified immunity protects public officials from personal liability for performing official, discretionary functions if the conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Freddy Nobriga Enterprises, Inc. v. State, Department of Hawaiian Home Lands

129 Haw. 123 · Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · Jan 30, 2013

) on the basis of qualified immunity. … Courts must analyze claims of qualified immunity under two prongs: (1) whether the facts show a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) if the first step is satisfied, whether that right was clearly established at the

Colao v. Mills

39 A.D.3d 1048 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 19, 2007

Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity, thereby shielding them from civil liability, as long as their actions did not violate the plaintiffs clearly established legal rights … qualified immunity test and determine whether reasonable officers would know that the conduct here was unlawful at the time (see Cowan ex rel.

Parking Authority of River City, Inc. v. Bridgefield Casualty Insurance Co.

477 S.W.3d 598 · Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Nov 6, 2015

Governmental immunity, on the other hand, is a derivative of sovereign immunity and is granted to qualified governmental agencies or entities. … The test for whether an entity qualifies for governmental immunity is two-pronged. Comair, 295 S.W.3d at 99 .