Case law

Ungerer v. Moody

17 Brief Times Rptr. 160 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Jan 28, 1993

More concretely, whether a police officer is protected from suit by qualified immunity turns on an objective standard of reasonableness, assessed in light of the legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time the … Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violating clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery. Mitchell v.

Hubbard v. Board of Education

19 Kan. App. 2d 853 · Court of Appeals of Kansas · Jun 24, 1994

In this case, the defendants argue they were entitled to qualified immunity. … The district court correctly held the Board had not violated a clearly established law and was entitled to qualified immunity for its actions.

City of Phoenix v. Superior Court

180 Ariz. 472 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Aug 4, 1994

The agents asserted qualified immunity as a defense. … the defendant’s version of the facts, the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established law.

Ford v. Baltimore City Sheriff's Office

149 Md. App. 107 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 27, 2002

The standards for establishing a prima facie case of negligence have been clearly established. The Court of Appeals stated in Bobo v. … Clearly, the Court would not have had to instruct the circuit court to make a qualified immunity determination absent a malice finding if no immunity existed for State constitutional torts. See Lee v.

Pisoni v. McCord

2018 Ohio 64 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 9, 2018

Thereafter, the burden shifts to plaintiff to establish that the defendant’s conduct violated a right so clearly established that any officer in the defendant’s position would have clearly understood that he was under an … The question is whether Pisoni established McCord’s conduct violated a right so clearly established that any officer in McCord’s position (objectively measured) would have clearly understood he was under an affirmative

Laubinger v. Department of Revenue

41 Mass. App. Ct. 598 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Nov 14, 1996

Whether an asserted right was clearly established at a particular time so that a public official who allegedly violated the right has no qualified immunity “presents a question of law” which “must be resolved de novo on appeal … Accordingly, we hold Fay is entitled to qualified immunity.

MacIas v. County of Los Angeles

50 Cal. Rptr. 3d 364 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 27, 2006

violation, the right was not clearly established. … immunity because the right at issue was not clearly established).

Chadha v. Charlotte Hungerford Hospital

77 Conn. App. 104 · Connecticut Appellate Court · May 27, 2003

, the qualified immunity provided by §§ 19a-20 and 19a-17b and the absolute immunity provided by the common law are concurrent; that is, that “where both an absolute and qualified immunity apply, the absolute immunity trumps … judgment on the basis of qualified immunity.

SCHROEDER v. DeKALB COUNTY Et Al.

341 Ga. App. 748 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Jun 14, 2017

Qualified immunity protects officials performing discretionary functions from individual claims brought pursuant to 42 USC § 1983, if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … were clearly established at the time the action was taken.

Craig Brown v. georgiacarry.org, Inc.

331 Ga. App. 890 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Apr 10, 2015

And in the context of a § 1983 claim, qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … That appeal was from the denial of a motion to suppress in a criminal prosecution, not a claim of qualified immunity in a § 1983 action.

Owens v. City of New York

183 A.D.3d 903 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 27, 2020

If the officer's actions did not violate a clearly established right or law, or if it was objectively reasonable for an officer to believe that his actions did not violate a clearly established right or law, his or her actions … event, he is entitled to qualified immunity for any such alleged failure ( see Boyd v City of New York , 149 AD3d at 686 ).

Praisner v. State

189 Conn. App. 540 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Apr 30, 2019

The state argues that because the plaintiff has not established that he falls clearly within any of the classifications of individuals specified therein, sover- eign immunity bars his action for monetary relief. … To avoid dismissal, the allega- tions of his complaint, construed in their most favorable light, must establish either that his indemnification action falls clearly within a statutory waiver of sover- eign immunity or that

Lewis v. Guerrero

978 S.W.2d 689 · Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Nov 5, 1998

Qualified immunity may thus be properly invoked to protect “government officials performing discretionary functions to the extent their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Nevertheless, we stated he did not prove his defense of qualified immunity because he did not establish the “good faith element.” 6 Guerrero, 946 S.W.2d at 573 .

Lesley v. Department of Social & Health Services

83 Wash. App. 263 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 26, 1996

CASEWORKER AND STATE QUALIFIED IMMUNITY We next address whether Maurer is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. … To receive qualified immunity under section 1983, a state official performing discretionary functions must show that the official’s conduct "[did] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Ogborn v. City of Lancaster

124 Cal. Rptr. 2d 238 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 22, 2002

The Individual Defendants Are Entitled to Qualified Governmental Immunity. … This immunity provision bars the Ogborns’ claim for trespassing because the warrant clearly authorized entry onto the Property and into the structures located there.

Brazos Transit District v. Lozano

72 S.W.3d 442 · Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont) · Mar 28, 2002

if the employee is protected by qualified immunity, then so is the governmental entity; and “[t]o that extent, a claim of sovereign immunity may be ‘based on’ an individual’s assertion of qualified immunity and therefore … This cannot fairly be characterized as an assertion of qualified. immunity. Brazos’ attempt to appeal fails under section (5).

Latits v. Phillips

298 Mich. App. 109 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 21, 2012

Therefore, the Court concluded that Brosseau was entitled to qualified immunity under 42 USC 1983 because it was not clearly established that her actions violated the Constitution. Brosseau, 543 US at 201 . … Of course, unlike Brosseau , the case at bar does not involve a claim under § 1983 or issues of qualified immunity. But Brosseau does provide guidance on two points.

McGee v. Snyder

326 Ill. App. 3d 343 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 7, 2001

Qualified Immunity Finally, defendants contend that, insofar as plaintiffs seek to recover damages, their claims are barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Plaintiffs have not met their burden of showing that defendants’ conduct violated any clearly established right; therefore, we hold that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity in the present case. III.

Hayes v. Mercer County

217 N.J. Super. 614 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 21, 1987

In our discussion of the federal qualified immunity, we stated why the investigator acted in good faith here. … Plaintiffs' remaining points are clearly without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). Affirmed.

Estate of Lee Ex Rel. Lee v. Spokane

2 P.3d 979 · 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 Wash.2d 34, 65 , 830 P.2d 318 (1992). By the plaintiffs' own account, Mr.