Case law

Bolanos v. Bain

696 So. 2d 478 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 2, 1997

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil trials (and the other burdens of litigation, including discovery) and from liability if their conduct violates no “clearly established … 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 obvious to all reasonable government

Golden v. Vickery

285 Ga. App. 216 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · May 2, 2007

The Goldens appeal the trial court’s award of summary judgment to Vickery on the ground of qualified immunity. We find no error and affirm. … The qualified immunity doctrine The doctrine of official immunity, also known as qualified immunity, offers public officers and employees limited protection from suit in their personal capacity.

Hollingsworth v. Hackler

303 S.W.3d 884 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jan 21, 2010

immunity shields an official performing discretionary functions from individual liability for civil damages under § 1983 if the official’s “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. 18 A right is “clearly established” when its contours are “sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that

People v. Hartwick

303 Mich. App. 247 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 19, 2013

Accordingly, we hold that defendant failed to produce sufficient evidence at the evidentiary hearing to qualify for the § 4(d) presumption of immunity and that he is not entitled to immunity under § 4 of the MMMA. C. … Section 4(f), which provides a qualified immunity for physicians, mandates that the immunity only applies to physi *262 cians that prescribe marijuana “in the course of a bona fide physician-patient relationship ....”

City of Akron v. Brown

122 N.E.3d 672 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 7, 2018

(Emphasis added.) {¶ 8} The plain language of R.C. 2925.11(B)(2)(b) clearly provides qualified individuals with immunity for a minor drug possession offense pursuant to R.C. Chapter 2925. … Brown had qualified for immunity and, consequently, dismissal of a charge for minor drug possession, any allied offenses would not "merge" for that purpose and there would be no grounds to extend immunity or dismiss any charges

Tyner v. STATE, DEPT. OF SOCIAL & HEALTH

137 Wash. App. 545 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 13, 2007

Qualified Immunity ¶ 26 DSHS contends that its officers are entitled to qualified immunity from Tyner's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 First Amendment claim because "[t]here is no law clearly establishing that criticizing one's supervisor … We explained qualified immunity in Wilson: Public officials are immune from suit unless the "law clearly proscribed the actions" they took.

Byrd v. Cavenaugh

269 Ga. App. 612 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Sep 15, 2004

City of Albany. 9 “(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 … In determining whether [Cavenaugh] clearly violated plaintiffs Fourth Amendment rights, and thus, whether or not he is entitled to qualified immunity, however, we must examine his actions in light of the Fourth *615 Amendment

City of Harlingen v. Vega

951 S.W.2d 25 · Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Jul 10, 1997

claims of qualified immunity in section 1983 cases.” … Flores and Manning focus their arguments on the objective reasonableness of their actions to establish their entitlement to qualified immunity.

Jan G. v. Semple

202 Conn. App. 202 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Jan 12, 2021

The plaintiff contends that the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. We agree with the defendants. The following well established legal principles guide our analysis. … ‘‘Qualified immunity shields federal and state 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

Phillips v. Garcia

147 So. 3d 569 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Aug 13, 2014

Additionally, Phillips argued that she was entitled to qualified immunity. … Affirmed. 5 We also find it significant that Phillips’s motion for 57.105 fees did not allege qualified immunity as a grounds for entitlement to an award of fees. Cf. Lago v.

Van Lee Brewer v. Jason Simental

Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo) · Oct 15, 2010

defendants and, therefore, the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. … Those governmental officials are entitled to qualified immunity "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Id.

DeNucci v. Henningsen

248 Or. App. 59 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 8, 2012

of ORS 162.257 was not clearly established, so he was entitled to qualified immunity. … Despite the lack of probable cause for the arrest, however, Henningsen is still entitled to qualified immunity if plaintiffs right not to be arrested for her conduct was not “clearly established” at the time.

Rankel v. County of Westchester

135 A.D.3d 731 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 13, 2016

State officials are entitled to qualified immunity under 42 USC § 1983 for discretionary functions if either (1) their conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional rights, or (2) it was objectively reasonable … for them to believe that their acts did not violate clearly established rights (see Doe ex rel.

Summerville v. City of Forest Park

195 Ohio App. 3d 13 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 15, 2011

Qualified Immunity {¶17} Qualified immunity shields a government official from civil liability unless (1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) that right was “clearly established” at … Moreover, she failed to demonstrate that they were not entitled to qualified immunity. {¶34} Therefore, we hold that Pape and Hall are entitled to qualified immunity on Summerville’s Section 1983 claims against them

Huber v. North Carolina State University

163 N.C. App. 638 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 20, 2004

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials per *645 forming discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … We must therefore determine whether Plaintiff’s right to privacy was clearly established at the time.

Perry v. Greanias

95 S.W.3d 683 · Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Dec 27, 2002

Government officials performing discretionary functions have qualified immunity from liability for actions that do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … in light of the clearly established rights.

Tortes v. King County

119 Wash. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 2, 2003

These individual public officials are immune from personal liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … It is preferred that a defendant’s entitlement to qualified immunity be decided as a matter of law on summary judgment. 19 The central purpose of qualified immunity is to protect public officials from interference with their

Thomas L. Sluman v. State of Washington

418 P.3d 125 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 22, 2018

Nevertheless, the decisions do not bestow absolute immunity on the officers. In short, Thomas Sluman presents many cases that establish that Trooper Bart Olson violated his clearly established Fourth Amendment rights. … Davis, focused on whether Officer Danny Davis should receive qualified immunity.

Saleem v. Snow

217 Ga. App. 883 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Jul 14, 1995

Qualified immunity shields state officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate *886 clearly established federal law of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … These include his claims that qualified immunity was improperly granted because it is clearly established that (1) he has a right to be fairly considered for parole; (2) rules prohibiting actions must provide adequate notice

Whitten v. Wooten

295 Ga. App. 281 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Dec 1, 2008

Qualified immunity gives government officials performing discretionary functions complete protection from individual claims brought pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 , if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory … She claims the force was excessive and violated clearly established constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.