Case law

Gwinnett County v. King

218 Ga. App. 800 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Oct 4, 1995

“Government officials performing discretionary functions are granted a qualified immunity shielding them from imposition of personal liability pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … established.

In the Interest of M.K.R., Minor Child, K.R., Mother, B.Y., Father

Court of Appeals of Iowa · Jun 7, 2017

App. 1994) (“Clearly, actions speak louder than words. Intent can be shown through conduct.”). … II is clearly outweighed by the continuing risk of harm posed by F.H.’s unresolved substance abuse issues.”).

Toomer v. Garrett

155 N.C. App. 462 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 31, 2002

The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials from personal liability under § 1983 “ ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … The qualified immunity inquiry requires a determination of whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time it was allegedly violated. See Andrews, supra.

Kandi Torres, Keisha Collins, and Oliver Bell v. Michael A. McCann

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Jun 9, 2016

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from civil liability insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established federal statutory … In summary, McCann has failed to carry his burden to create an issue of material fact as to whether the officials’ conduct violated any clearly established constitutional rights with regard to his First Amendment and retaliation

Baker v. Gray

57 Mass. App. Ct. 618 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Mar 24, 2003

The doctrine of qualified immunity may shield State officials from liability for civil damages under this statute, so long as they are performing discretionary functions and do not violate “clearly established statutory or … Gray accordingly was entitled to qualified immunity from the plaintiffs’ additional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violation of their clearly established rights under the First Amendment and equal protection clause

Martinez v. Hardy

864 S.W.2d 767 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Oct 28, 1993

Indeed, our finding of absolute privilege could be expressed in terms of qualified immunity. … Our absolute privilege analysis clearly shows that the first two elements of qualified immunity are met.

Kravitz v. Police Department of the Hudson

285 A.D.2d 716 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 5, 2001

“A government official performing a discretionary function is entitled to qualified immunity provided his or her conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … “The defendant must establish that he [or she] had an objectively reasonable belief that his [or her] act violated no clearly established rights [citation omitted]” (Young v Selsky, 41 F3d 47, 54 , cert denied 514 US 1102

Van Lee Brewer v. Jason Simental

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

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. … Therefore, the defendants were entitled to claim qualified immunity. See Kipps, 197 F.3d at 768.

Van Lee Brewer v. Jason Simental

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

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 .

Pelerin v. Carlton County

498 N.W.2d 33 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Mar 23, 1993

To avoid dismissal on grounds of qualified immunity, a plaintiff alleging violation of a constitutional right by a public official must allege that the violated right was “clearly established” in a particularized sense. … The law in this area was thus not “clearly established” when Pelerin was fired.

Leibson v. Ohio Department of Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities

84 Ohio App. 3d 751 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 30, 1992

Qualified immunity shields government officials under the objective standard which tests whether their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … 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.

Jones v. Department of Health

140 Wash. App. 476 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 4, 2007

of a clearly established constitutional right. … asserts qualified immunity, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant violated a clearly established constitutional right in order to survive summary judgment. 23 Jones claims the individual defendants violated his

T & M HOMES, INC. v. Township of Mansfield

162 N.J. Super. 497 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 7, 1978

Defendants claim that they are entitled to an absolute immunity, while plaintiffs concede qualified immunity but no more. … In addition to overcoming a defense of qualified immunity, they must establish policy or custom which violates a constitutional right. In this action there is no point in holding defendants board and committee liable.

TATTNALL COUNTY Et Al. v. ARMSTRONG

333 Ga. App. 46 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Jul 13, 2015

IX establishes a different type of immunity, known as official or qualified immunity when an officer or an employee of the state is sued in his individual capacity. 6 Banks v. Happoldt, 271 Ga. … Armstrong clearly had the burden to establish waiver. As we have previously explained, “[sovereign immunity is not an affirmative defense that must be established by the party seeking its protection.

Jaeger v. Wracker

21 Ohio App. 3d 150 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 13, 1985

Fitzgerald (1982), 457 U.S. 800 , 818-819: “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. … fireman, the trustees cannot claim a qualified immunity.

Estate of Lee v. City of Spokane

101 Wash. App. 158 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 15, 2000

Police officers have qualified immunity from liability for civil damages for conduct that “ ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Id. … Entitlement to qualified immunity may be established, and was established here, as a matter of law. Robinson v. City of Seattle, 119 Wn.2d 34, 65 , 830 P.2d 318 (1992). By the plaintiffs’ own account, Mr.

Maxwell v. MAYOR & ALDER. OF SAVANNAH

226 Ga. App. 705 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Jun 5, 1997

Despite this finding, however, we conclude that Gellatly was immune from the § 1983 claim in this case. Gellatly’s qualified immunity defense is governed by federal law. Forney v. Purvis, 190 Ga. … For the law to be *708 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

Redwood v. Lierman

331 Ill. App. 3d 1073 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 7, 2002

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that under the facts in the amended complaint, they are entitled to a qualified immunity from liability because the applicable legal standards were not clearly established at the time they … clearly established at the time the official acted.

Williams v. Board of County Commissioners

125 N.M. 445 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Apr 16, 1998

Qualified immunity protects officials whose conduct does not contravene “clearly established [federal] statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the conduct.

Butler v. Dowling

750 So. 2d 674 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 22, 1999

There, the court held that the failure to loosen tight handcuffs did not rise to the level of a clearly established constitutional violation. … Dowling's version of the facts, if proven, would overcome the defense of qualified immunity. See Redo v. Sylvestri, 690 So.2d 731 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).