Case law

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.

Dollard v. Callery

185 A.3d 694 · Superior Court of Delaware · Apr 16, 2018

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.”63 A clearly … right to fair trial—that clearly was established at the time of the challenged conduct.

Harrod v. Caney

547 S.W.3d 536 · Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Feb 23, 2018

Harrod filed an interlocutory appeal, arguing the claims against him are barred by absolute immunity and qualified immunity. … Coroners are entitled to qualified immunity both by statute and pursuant to common law.

Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center - El Paso v. Gloria Bustillos

556 S.W.3d 394 · Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso) · Jun 13, 2018

First, the federal court’s ruling was based on “qualified immunity” which evaluates whether there was a violation of a constitutional right and whether that right was clearly established at the time. … (recognizing that the terms “official immunity” and “qualified immunity” are often used interchangeably, but that the doctrines are separate defenses; qualified immunity applies when federal law claims are raised while

McKinney v. City of Tukwila

13 P.3d 631 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 9, 2000

clearly established at the time it was taken." … In light of the above case law, we find that the impropriety of the officers' actions here is not clearly established. We thus find that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity from suit under section 1983. C.

Davila v. City of New York

139 A.D.3d 890 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 18, 2016

Moreover, under the circumstances of this case, the officers’ actions would be entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known” (Mullenix

People Ex Rel. Feuer v. Progressive Horizon, Inc.

248 Cal. App. 4th 533 · California Court of Appeal · May 31, 2016

Proposition D bans medical marijuana businesses, but grants certain qualifying businesses a limited immunity from enforcement of the ordinance. … As set forth in the Declarations attached to these moving papers, Progressive has resolved the LiveScan issue and now fully qualifies for limited immunity.

Painter v. City of MT

823 S.E.2d 583 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 5, 2019

"Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct." … In the absence of such a clearly established right, the officer-defendants were entitled to qualified immunity from a 42 U.S.C. § 1985 conspiracy claim because they were employed by the same department. Id.

State v. W.S.B.

453 N.J. Super. 206 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 26, 2018

The defendant bears that burden of establishing the immunity by a preponderance *233 of the evidence. … "[I]t is only when the facts known to the prosecutor clearly indicate or clearly establish the appropriateness of an instruction that the duty of the prosecution arises."

Haavisto v. Perpich

498 N.W.2d 746 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Jun 9, 1993

immunity grounds if they can show plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment right to be free from the “cruel and unusual” conditions was not clearly established during the time he was incarcerated); Bogard, 586 F.2d at 409 (problem of … Whether qualified immunity exists turns on whether the official violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right, the existence of which a reasonable person would have known. Id. at 674-75.

Dunn v. McFeeley

127 N.M. 513 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Apr 28, 1999

The issue on appeal with respect to § 1983 is whether the Individual Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the ground that their alleged misconduct had not been “clearly established” in 1994 to be contrary to … Such a person, however, is entitled to qualified immunity from suit unless at the time of the alleged misconduct it was “clearly established” that the misconduct violated federal law. See Yount v.

Doe, SORB No. 474362 v. Sex Offender Registry Board

94 Mass. App. Ct. 52 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Sep 19, 2018

from a damages claim because the constitutional rights the defendants allegedly violated were not "clearly established." … This is because as employees of a State executive agency, Hayden and Myers are immune from suit under § 1983 unless their actions violated clearly established constitutional rights.

Farrell Ex Rel. Farrell v. Transylvania County Board of Education

175 N.C. App. 689 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 7, 2006

“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 … Assuming arguendo that plaintiffs properly pled its claim for relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , plaintiffs’ allegations, nonetheless, fail to establish any conduct by Haehnel that violated clearly established statutory

Burl W. Everman v. Lesa G. Robinson

Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Dec 6, 2024

As to qualified official immunity, Deputy Everman asserts that the act of parking his police vehicle at the accident scene constituted a discretionary act, which is protected by qualified official immunity. … The issue is whether qualified official immunity applies to bar a negligence claim if one could be established. -10-  ....

Moore v. Hayman

67 Ohio App. 3d 184 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 30, 1990

principle purposes for the adoption of the qualified immunity standard as articulated in Harlow, supra. … Due to the fact that no clearly established constitutionalrightwas violated, therefore shielding the appellees with qualified immunity, appellants' issues two (2), three (3) and four (4) become irrelevant.

Prokop v. City of Los Angeles

59 Cal. Rptr. 3d 355 · California Court of Appeal · May 21, 2007

—In Carroll, supra, 60 Cal.App.4th 606 , the court held that a paved bicycle path qualifies as a “trail” under the immunity provisions of section 831.4. … We have already disposed of this argument: Government Code section 815, subdivision (b), clearly provides that the liability of a public entity established by “this part”—which includes the section 815.6 liability for failure

Mahoney v. City of Albany

2022 NY Slip Op 07288 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 22, 2022

In the federal context, public officials may invoke qualified immunity under 42 USC § 1983 "unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established … Given this framework, we begin with Tierney's claim of qualified immunity.

Waller v. State

64 Wash. App. 318 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 18, 1992

The Meyers court determined that the proper qualified immunity test was whether the conduct complained of "violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'" … The qualified immunity question is whether the caseworkers' actions violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Meyers , at 1158.

Earl v. Gusman

228 So. 3d 268 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Sep 27, 2017

Further, the court found that Earl |.Jailed to establish that Sheriff Gusman was not entitled to the application of the doctrines of qualified immunity or force majeure. This appeal follows. … Earl also argues that the trial court erred in applying the doctrine of qualified immunity. Louisiana Revised Statute 9:2798.1, provides in part; B.

Jimenez v. County of Los Angeles

29 Cal. Rptr. 3d 553 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 2, 2005

were entitled to qualified immunity. … Government employees generally are shielded by 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