Case law

Mark v. Williams

45 Wash. App. 182 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 27, 1986

The test enunciated in Harlow has effectively eliminated the subjective component of qualified immunity, establishing a purely objective standard. 4 The defendants had a right to believe they could operate as they did since … We note that this qualified immunity created in Bivens, unlike the qualified immunity enunciated later in Harlow for § 1983 actions, is based on both a good faith (subjective) and reasonableness (objective) test.

Picariello v. Commonwealth

54 Pa. Commw. 252 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 15, 1980

However, plaintiff’s complaint clearly contradicts that claim, by alleging that the Secretary acted as a Commonwealth agent. 6 The guidelines established in DuBree v. … Defendant shall file an answer, possibly with new matter addressing the issue of qualified official immunity, if desired.

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.

France v. Hunter

368 S.W.3d 279 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Apr 6, 2012

from suit under the doctrines of qualified immunity, official immunity, and judicial immunity. … Public officials are provided qualified immunity for their official acts unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing: “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established

Hourigan v. Cassidy

131 N.M. 141 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Jul 2, 2001

They contend that the trial court erred in denying their claim of qualified immunity. … “Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from suit under § 1983 as long as ‘their conduct [did] not violate clearly established [federal] statutory or constitutional rights

Conner v. Department of Commerce

443 P.3d 1250 · Court of Appeals of Utah · May 23, 2019

Department of Commerce those terms when discussing immunity conferred by the GIA. In this context, “qualified immunity” simply means “immunity subject to exceptions,” Hansen v. … ¶40 Conner also argues that the Defendants waived the governmental immunity defense when they agreed to withdraw (…continued) discretionary functions when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or

Caldwell v. Brogden

678 So. 2d 1148 · Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · May 10, 1996

A qualified immunity inquiry involves two questions: first, whether the defendants were acting within the scope of their discretionary authority, and second, whether their actions violated clearly established law. … The burden then shifted to Caldwell to prove that they violated clearly established law, a burden that she failed to meet.

Harris County, Texas G. Young D. Gehring and J. Cavitt v. Shirley Nagel, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Joel Don Casey

Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · Aug 25, 2011

Identification of the clearly established law is not a question of fact to be established by evidence. … This would not be qualified immunity, but absolute immunity.

Putthoff v. Ancrum

934 S.W.2d 164 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Dec 19, 1996

In upholding the district court’s granting of the medical examiners’ motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, the court reasoned: Qualified immunity is available to government officials performing discretionary … Furthermore, the elements of official immunity and qualified immunity appear for all practical purposes to be the same.

Outlaw v. City of Meriden

43 Conn. App. 387 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Oct 1, 1996

“The Supreme Court has expressly encouraged the use of summary judgment when qualified immunity is raised as a defense. … “As a general rule, police officers are entitled to qualified immunity if (1) their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights, or (2) it was objectively reasonable for them to believe their acts did

Morris v. Johnson

262 Ga. App. 182 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Jul 8, 2003

“Government officials, including police officers, are entitled to immunity from personal liability under 42 USC § 1983 if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … S. 635, 640 (107 SC 3034, 97 LE2d 523) (1987). 5 The burden on the plaintiff to show a clearly established right is a *184 strenuous one. 6 And “if the law is not clearly established, the officer is entitled to summary judgment

Kenneth Hill v. Richard Trinci, Dominto Carrillo, Jackie Dent, Warner Lumpkins, Lee Williams, and Kandice Woodard

Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · Jul 24, 2012

Government officials performing discretionary functions have qualified immunity from a suit for damages under section 1983 so long as the official’s conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory … The plaintiff must show: (1) the official’s conduct violated a federally guaranteed right; (2) the right was clearly established; and (3) the official’s conduct was objectively unreasonable in light of the clearly established

Scott v. City of Columbus, Unpublished Decision (3-30-2001)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 30, 2001

of clearly established law and the information that he possessed. … defendant's conduct did indeed violate clearly established rights).

Furtado v. Yun Chung Law

51 So. 3d 1269 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 2, 2011

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages for torts committed while performing discretionary duties unless their conduct violates a clearly established statutory or constitutional right … Just as Justice Kennedy discussed qualified immunity with regard to section 1983 claims in Saucier, qualified immunity in a state claim is also an issue the trial court should address as soon as possible because the trial

Rasche v. Berman

491 S.W.3d 182 · Court of Appeals of Kentucky · May 20, 2016

The court held that the Appel-lees were immune from Rasche’s claim that they negligently failed to cancel school, reasoning that the decision whether to close Jefferson County Public Schools is clearly an act involving the … Qualified official immunity is an affirmative defense that must be specifically pled. Gomez v.

Wayne Scott and Gary Johnson v. Charles Godwin

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Aug 31, 2004

In conducting a qualified immunity analysis, the reviewing court first determines whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. See Siegert v. … “‘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.”

Smith v. Bunkley

171 A.3d 1118 · Superior Court of Delaware · Aug 3, 2016

to establish jurisdiction necessary to survive a motion to dismiss.18 Therefore, the “[p]laintiff bears the burden of establishing that sovereign immunity has been abrogated.”19 For example, in Pauley et al v. … The State Tort Claims Act provides a qualified immunity to state employees, only in their individual capacities, exempting them from liability.22 The defense of qualified immunity may be raised when: “(1) the alleged act

Williams v. Franklin County Board of Commissioners

145 Ohio App. 3d 530 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 28, 2001

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, public officials who perform discretionary functions are generally entitled to immunity from suit in a Section 1983 action as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established … of clearly established law and the information that he possessed.

Gionis v. Headwest, Inc.

799 So. 2d 416 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Nov 16, 2001

Gionis subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment as to Count VIII, on the basis that he was immune from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Once it is established that the acts in question were discretionary governmental functions, the second element requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that the government official violated the plaintiffs clearly established

Alamo Workforce Development, Inc. v. Vann

21 S.W.3d 428 · Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · May 2, 2000

Clearly this statutorily-defined structure establishes that work *433 force boards act as arms of the State and carry out the policies established by the Texas Workforce Commission. … This evidence is consistent with statutory provisions which establish service delivery areas for qualifying localities. See 29 U.S.C.A. § 1511 (West 1999).