Case law

Erickson v. County of Clay

451 N.W.2d 666 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Feb 27, 1990

; and that neither Mickelberg and Shoop nor Costello are entitled to any qualified immunity because their conduct in participating in the grand jury deliberations was unreasonable and clearly exceeded established norms. … the media was unreasonable and clearly exceeded established legal norms.

Maras v. City of Brainerd

502 N.W.2d 69 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Jun 22, 1993

Qualified Immunity Appellants claim that, even if the trustee’s claims are actionable under section 1983, Pfingsten is entitled to qualified immunity against those claims. … The threshold question is whether Peterson had a clearly established right which Pfingsten violated. We conclude that he did.

Crone v. Connelly

74 Conn. App. 788 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Feb 4, 2003

“The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability if the official’s conduct did not violate constitutional rights that were clearly established at the pertinent time or if it was objectively … As a general rule, police officers are entitled to qualified immunity if (1) their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights, or (2) it was objectively reasonable for them to believe their acts did

Heyward v. Christmas

352 S.C. 298 · Court of Appeals of South Carolina · Nov 4, 2002

Government officials “performing discre *309 tionary functions generally are granted a qualified immunity and are ‘shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … to qualified immunity, the circuit court erred in granting Christmas a directed verdict based on qualified immunity.

Myers v. City of Hartford

84 Conn. App. 395 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Aug 10, 2004

for qualified governmental immunity, *398 rather than under § 52-557n (a) (2), on which the court relied in directing a verdict for the defendants. … Section 7-465 clearly states that governmental immunity will *401 not be allowed as a defense in an indemnification claim, except that the municipality will not be hable for the wilful and wanton acts of its employees.

Padilla v. Mason

169 S.W.3d 493 · Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso) · Jul 28, 2005

of qualified immunity and official immunity. … Because there was no clearly established rule which would prohibit Mason from using the force that he did, he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Bradley v. Medical Board

56 Cal. App. 4th 445 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 15, 1997

Immunity The qualified immunity defense protects “government officials performing discretionary functions . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … When qualified immunity is asserted, we must undertake a two-step analysis: “(1) Was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established?

Lang v. City of Nacogdoches

942 S.W.2d 752 · Texas Court of Appeals, 12th District (Tyler) · Mar 27, 1997

In suits alleging illegal arrest, the qualified immunity determination turns on whether a reasonable officer could have believed the arrest to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the officer … the legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time it was taken. *767 Anderson v.

Aboufariss v. City of De Kalb

305 Ill. App. 3d 1054 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 7, 1999

To determine whether qualified immunity applies to a defendant in section 1983 actions, courts examine whether the defendant’s conduct violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights and whether the rights were clearly established … Once the defendant raises the defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff carries the burden of demonstrating the violation of a clearly established right. Forman, 104 F.3d at 957-58 .

Monica Lee, Individually and On Behalf of The Estate of Damien Cameron, and All of the Heirs at Law and Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Damien Cameron v. Rankin County, Mississippi, Hunter Thomas Elward and Luke Aaron Stickman

Court of Appeals of Mississippi · May 5, 2026

Qualified Immunity ¶25. … Thus, plaintiffs bear the burden to rebut a defense of qualified immunity “by establishing that the official’s allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law.” Harris v. Miss.

Swope v. Krischer

783 So. 2d 1164 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Apr 18, 2001

In discussing the requirement that the law be clearly established, the court stated: 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 … The complaint does not show a violation of a clearly established right by these defendants. Therefore, qualified immunity protects appellees.

Derrick Dutton v. Sheryl Hayes-Pupko

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Aug 7, 2008

He asserted that Hayes-Pupko had to overcome his assertion of qualified immunity by proving that he (1) violated her clearly established rights and (2) acted unreasonably or in bad faith in doing so. … Discussion "A government official performing discretionary functions is entitled to qualified immunity unless his conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Strange v. Spokane County

171 Wash. App. 585 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 30, 2012

The second question, specific to qualified immunity, is whether the constitutional right was clearly established given the specific context of the case before the court. … Qualified Immunity ¶20 Mr.

Conde v. Colorado State Department of Personnel

18 Brief Times Rptr. 451 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Mar 10, 1994

The plaintiffs complaint must adequately state a claim of violation of clearly established law; if not, a defendant pleading qualified immunity will be entitled to dismissal before discovery commences. Mitchell v. … Once the defendant raises a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff assumes the burden of identifying both the clearly established law that the government official is alleged to have violated and the conduct that violated

Osborne v. Seymour

164 Wash. App. 820 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 9, 2011

Qualified Immunity ¶41 “Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials who perform discretionary functions are usually shielded from liability for civil damages if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established … For qualified immunity purposes, “clearly established” means: “[T]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.

Kane v. Williamstown Township

301 Mich. App. 582 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 11, 2013

While this is a well-established principle, it is not absolute. In certain instances, Michigan criminal law clearly places the fact-finding function with the trial court judge. … To qualify for § 4 immunity, one must prove that he or she “(1) is a qualifying patient, (2) who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card, and (3) possesses less than 2.5 ounces of usable marijuana,” and

City of Dallas v. Half Price Books, Records, Magazines, Inc.

883 S.W.2d 374 · Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas) · Aug 18, 1994

If a police officer is immune from tort liability under the qualified immunity doctrine, the city is also immune. City of Houston v. Newsom, 858 S.W.2d 14, 19 (Tex.App. … My actions were consistent with State law and departmental regulations, and I did not violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person would have known.

McCormick v. Board of Shawnee County Comm'rs

28 Kan. App. 2d 744 · Court of Appeals of Kansas · Mar 30, 2001

light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken. … The holding in Kalina leaves no doubt it was clearly established. Thereafter, a prosecutor is to be charged with knowledge that such an act was unreasonable. Long, therefore, is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Riddle v. City of Ottawa

12 Kan. App. 2d 714 · Court of Appeals of Kansas · May 20, 1988

If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct. … If he did so act, he is entitled to qualified immunity.”

Thacker v. City of Hyattsville

135 Md. App. 268 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 14, 2000

immunity under federal law, and that, as a matter of law, such findings establish lack of malice and qualified immunity under section 5-507. … Because Judge Williams clearly applied the objective federal standard for qualified immunity, we hold that his decision that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity from section 1983 liability did not collaterally