Case law

Sugg v. Albuquerque Public School District

128 N.M. 1 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Aug 16, 1999

Qualified immunity is subject to the collateral order doctrine which grants this Court appellate jurisdiction over suits barred by qualified immunity because qualified immunity is a final bar to suit and is therefore immediately … that the law was clearly established at the time when the alleged violation occurred.

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.

Hicks v. Leffler

119 Ohio App. 3d 424 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 24, 1997

First, with regard to immunity for a federal claim, in order to defeat a defendant’s motion for summary judgment under a qualified immunity defense, a “plaintiff must: 1) identify a clearly established right alleged to have … Taken together, Hunter and Harlow stand for the proposition that, where the law has been clearly established, a mistaken decision made in extraordinary circumstances may not lead to loss of immunity.

Vincent v. State Through Dept. of Corrections

468 So. 2d 1329 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Apr 16, 1985

Skinner examined an action brought pursuant to U.S.C. 42 § 1983, which permits government officials to raise a qualified immunity defense. … A plaintiff bringing forth a "1983 action" seeking damages for deprivation of statutory rights may overcome a defendant official's qualified immunity only by showing those rights were clearly established at the time of the

Porter v. MASSARELLI

303 Ga. App. 91 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Mar 24, 2010

(a) Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from individual claims if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … clearly established law.

Dorothy King, R.N. and Patricia Battle, R.N. v. Virginia Betts,, Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities, in her Individual Capacity

Court of Appeals of Tennessee · Dec 18, 2009

As to the issue of qualified immunity, the trial court found that qualified immunity applied as “the right that was allegedly violated is not a clearly established right of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Further, qualified immunity would not apply if the Appellees’ conduct was unreasonable “in light of the clearly established constitutional rights.” Williams, 186 F.3d at 691.

Venegas v. County of Los Angeles

63 Cal. Rptr. 3d 741 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 31, 2007

Today qualified immunity shields a public officer from an action for damages under 42 United States Code section 1983 *1242 unless the officer has violated a “clearly established” constitutional right. 24 By “clearly established … established’ at the time.”

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

BD. OF COM'RS OF EFFINGHAM CTY. v. Farmer

228 Ga. App. 819 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Oct 15, 1997

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity 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 … The test for determining whether a defendant is protected from suit by reason of qualified immunity is the objective reasonableness of the defendant’s conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law; in this regard

People of Michigan v. Robert Elijah Anthony

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 22, 2019

“A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if, after a review of the entire record, we are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” … Defendant maintains that the more recent passage of the MMMA calls into question the Michigan Supreme Court’s prior holding in Kazmierczak, which allows the smell of marijuana alone to establish probable cause.

Gasparre v. City of St. Paul

501 N.W.2d 683 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Jun 22, 1993

State officials are entitled to qualified immunity when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before commencement of discovery. Mitchell v.

Gurno v. Town of LaConner

65 Wash. App. 218 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 20, 1992

Qualified Immunity Respondent officers cite various doctrines of qualified immunity for police officers who act in good faith, arguing that appellant failed to introduce evidence of their lack of good faith in arresting her … Qualified immunity under § 1983 is granted to police officers performing discretionary functions insofar as their conduct "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

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

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.

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.

Catsouras v. Department of California Highway Patrol

181 Cal. App. 4th 856 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 29, 2010

“A rule of qualified immunity shields a public officer from an action for damages under section 1983 unless the officer has violated a ‘clearly established’ constitutional right. [Citation.] As stated in Saucier [v. … The high court explained that ‘[i]f the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.’ [Citation.]

People v. Tuttle

304 Mich. App. 72 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 30, 2014

To be entitled to immunity, a qualifying patient cannot possess more than 2.5 ounces of usable marijuana and 12 marijuana plants. MCL 333.26424(a). … Section 4(f), which provides a qualified immunity for physicians, mandates that the immunity only applies to physicians that prescribe marijuana “in the course of a bona fide physician-patient relationship . .. .”

Rousselo v. Starling

128 N.C. App. 439 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 3, 1998

We agree and conclude that under the doctrine of qualified immunity Trooper Starling was immune from suit because a reasonable person in his position would not have known that his actions violated a clearly established right … Police officers sued under section 1983 are not protected by qualified immunity if the officers’ conduct violated “ ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ”

Earles v. Perkins

788 N.E.2d 1260 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 29, 2003

Qualified Immunity Government officials are 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 … have believed the arrest to be lawful, in light of the clearly-established law and the information that the arresting officer possessed"). 9 The Appellants also assert that Earles and Jones are entitled to 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.