Case law

Miller v. Doe

214 Conn. App. 35 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Jul 26, 2022

‘‘If an official’s conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right . . . then he is protected by qualified immunity.’’ Walker v. Schult, supra, 126. … Our conclusion that federal law does not clearly establish the right at issue in the present case, however, does not end our qualified immunity analysis.

Black v. Borough of Atlantic Highlands

263 N.J. Super. 445 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 6, 1993

Even if the Borough had not created the Shade Tree Commission, but had dealt directly with Aymonier, retention of a private contractor and reliance upon his services would clearly be a policy decision. … To ordinary landowners unprotected by statutory immunities, liability in tort to adjoining property owners may be established for damages proximately flowing from dangerous conditions caused by overhanging branches or matter

John M. Gately and Patty Sue Gately v. Hamilton

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 22, 2015

The father and his current wife, as co-plaintiffs, argue that the trial court erred by instructing the jury that defendants' conduct is subject to protection under qualified statutory immunities … immunity.

GAB Business Services, Inc. v. Moore

829 S.W.2d 345 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Apr 14, 1992

First, the evidence does not clearly establish that GAB was an agent of the Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool. … We are not persuaded that GAB is entitled to official or governmental immunity. The trial court committed no error in refusing to grant a directed verdict on the basis of governmental immunity.

in Re the State of Texas, Ex. Rel. Joe D. Gonzales, District Attorney, Bexar County

Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · Aug 28, 2019

clearly controlling legal principles.” … See Weeks, 391 S.W.3d at 122 (“an issue of first impression can sometimes qualify for mandamus relief when the factual scenario has never been precisely addressed but the principle of law has been clearly established.”)

Parker v. St. Stephen's Urban Dev.

243 N.J. Super. 317 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 24, 1990

That total figure is *321 prorated among the apartments to establish the "basic rent" for each unit. … Defendant clearly falls outside the scope of this definition. No benefactor whose charitable contributions require protection exists in this case.

Osier v. Burlington Telecom

Vermont Superior Court · Oct 20, 2010

“‘Clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity means that ‘[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.’” … Phrased another way, the question of “clearly established law” in this case is as follows: (1) was it clearly established law that a government official must comply with a regulatory entity’s order such as the Certificate

Baker v. Airguide Manufacturing, LLC

151 So. 3d 38 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Oct 29, 2014

Based on the changes to her testimony, Baker argued that there was a genuine dispute over material facts whether Airguide possessed the requisite degree of control over Baker to establish Airguide’s immunity under the … Thus, an employer can establish its right to workers’ compensation immunity by either meeting the three-prong test for common law “borrowed servant” immunity or by establishing that the injured employee came from a “help

Memorial Hermann Hospital System D/B/A Memorial Hermann Southwest Hospital v. Jewell Hayden

Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Jun 17, 2014

Mar. 28, 2014) (“Generally, waiver presents a question of fact, but ‘when the facts and circumstances are admitted or clearly established, the question [of waiver] becomes one of law.’”) … To limit the rights that may be waived only to those where the law clearly establishes an ability to prevail is to demand too much.

Fernander v. Bonis

947 So. 2d 584 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jan 3, 2007

We first address Fernander's claim the trial court erred in finding that Captain Bonis was entitled to qualified immunity as to Fernander's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 due process claims. … A plaintiff suing a government official has the burden of showing that the official's acts, at the time, violated clearly established law." Alexander v. Univ. of N. Fla., 39 F.3d 290 , 291 (11th Cir.1994).

Kremer v. Cox

114 Ohio App. 3d 41 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 11, 1996

We further note that, since Cox’s statements were made in his capacity as coroner, they are protected by a qualified immunity codified in R.C. 2744.03(A)(6). … QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE Cox asserts that the statements of which Kremer complains were made in Cox’s official capacity as coroner. Therefore, he claims, a “qualified privilege” attaches to them.

Knepper v. Genstar Corp.

537 So. 2d 619 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 20, 1988

Knepper, having worked in the explosives industry for over twenty-five years selling explosives and implementing their on-site use, had established a large clientele. … Where the circumstances and content of allegedly defamatory statements are clearly disputed by the parties, the jury should determine, under proper instructions from the court, whether or not the communication was privileged

Morgan v. Union County

268 N.J. Super. 337 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 16, 1993

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages when they perform discretionary functions, unless their acts violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … In our view, the presentment was highly relevant respecting the defense of qualified immunity.

Buckner v. Lower Florida Keys Hosp. Dist.

403 So. 2d 1025 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Aug 11, 1981

To support a cause of action for conspiracy to defame, it is therefore incumbent upon a plaintiff to properly allege those elements which would establish a defamation, one of which is a publication. Barry College v. … Although some do not heed to the pleading requirements, it is still mandatory under established precedent that a complaint must allege ultimate facts. Ocala Loan Company v. Smith, 155 So.2d 711 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963).

Payne v. Cornhusker Motor Lines, Inc.

177 S.W.3d 820 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Aug 9, 2005

However, a trial court abuses its discretion when a ruling shocks one’s sense of justice, indicates a lack of consideration, and is clearly against the logic of the circumstances. Id. … Thus, although Section 490.680 requires a foundation consisting of testimony by a qualified witness, Section 490.692 allows this foundation to be established with an affidavit rather than by direct testimony. Smith v.

Horn v. Price

255 N.J. Super. 350 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 9, 1992

doctrine of parental immunity. … Moreover, we are satisfied that all issues of law raised are clearly without merit. R. 2:ll-3(e)(l)(E).

Mascher v. Hon. hancock/gaver

Court of Appeals of Arizona · Feb 16, 2016

State, 206 Ariz. 529, 532, ¶ 6 (2003) (when defendant offers immunity defense, plaintiff "bears the initial burden of proving a violation of a clearly established constitutional or statutory right").

Dwayne Cochran v. Town Of Jonesborough, Tennessee

Court of Appeals of Tennessee · Mar 27, 2019

established right[.]” … Lubelan, 675 F.App’x. 497, 500 (6th Cir. 2016) (“[H]andcuffing someone so tightly that the handcuffs themselves cause injury is indeed a clearly established violation of the Fourth Amendment[.]”).

McKinney v. City of Tukwila

103 Wash. App. 391 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 11, 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.

Marina P. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security

214 Ariz. 326 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Feb 20, 2007

To the extent findings are not adequately supported by the record, they are clearly erroneous. Grant v. Ariz. Pub. Serv. Co., 133 Ariz. 434, 456 , 652 P.2d 507, 529 (1982). B. … prevented Mother from parenting the children that Mother has substantially neglected or willfully refused to remedy. ¶30 Missing one visit and being late for two others fourteen months prior to the severance trial hardly qualifies