Case law

Bryant v. Louisville Metro Hous. Auth.

568 S.W.3d 839 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Mar 14, 2019

Louisville Metro, then, is clearly cloaked in sovereign immunity. … Juanita Mitchell is entitled to official qualified immunity Because we have held that LMHA is an immune entity, we must determine whether Mitchell is, therefore, extended qualified official immunity for her actions as a government

Blevins v. Denny

114 N.C. App. 766 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 17, 1994

Similarly, the Court concluded that denial of a public official’s claim of qualified immunity from suit, to the extent that it turns on the legal questions of whether the conduct complained of violated “clearly established … In Mitchell , the United States Supreme Court went on to explain that entitlement [to qualified immunity] is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability; and like an absolute immunity, it is effectively

Williams v. Prince George's County

112 Md. App. 526 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 4, 1996

Because of these considerations, immunity is granted to officers who act reasonably, albeit mistakenly, in light of clearly established law and the information they possessed without the benefit of hindsight. … immunity because their actions were in conformity with “clearly established” legal rules.

Ivonne Padilla v. Peter Mason and Jaeson Jones

Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso) · Jul 28, 2005

Qualified immunity shields an officer if a reasonable officer could have believed the action to be lawful in light of clearly established law and the information the officer possessed. Hunter v. … Because there was no clearly established rule which would prohibit Mason from using the force that he did, he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Harrison v. Director of Department of Corrections

194 Mich. App. 446 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 1, 1992

Highest executive officials may qualify for absolute immunity because they have broad-based jurisdiction or extensive authority similar to that of a judge or legislator. Chivas, supra, p 471 . … Therefore, the trial court properly granted defendants Brown and Johnson summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7) based upon governmental immunity. 1 The remaining individual defendants do not qualify as "highest executive

Campos De Suenos, Ltd. v. County of Bernalillo

130 N.M. 563 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Apr 18, 2001

They correctly point out that to overcome their assertions of qualified immunity, CDS “must demonstrate that (1) the defendant’s alleged conduct violated a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly … established at the time of the conduct.”

Anthony Norman v. Ashlei Janak, Bobby Lumpkin, Bryan Collier, Shovanda D. Mathis, Margarita Thomas, Rocky Moore, and Tammy Shelby

Texas Court of Appeals, 15th District · May 1, 2025

See 2 Although it is more precise to say Defendants would be entitled to “qualified immunity” under federal law from Norman’s Section 1983 claims, “official immunity” and “qualified immunity” are often used … Further, qualified immunity under federal law is analogous to state law official immunity and “protects governmental officers with discretionary authority from liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established

24 Franklin Ave. R.E. Corp. v. Cannella

139 A.D.3d 717 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 4, 2016

The complaint does not allege that Fitzsimmons undertook any actions that violated “clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have been aware” (Zalaski v City of Hartford, 723 F3d 382, 388 … Therefore, the defendants are entitled to dismissal of the complaint insofar as asserted against Fitzsimmons, based on the principle of qualified immunity (see Vincent v Yelich, 718 F3d 157, 170 [2d Cir 2013]; Scott v Fischer

Texas A&M University Texas A&M University System Dr. Jerry Gaston And Eugene Ray v. Don Thompson

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Dec 18, 2003

Appellants assert the protection of sovereign immunity, qualified immunity, and quasi-judicial or official immunity against Thompson's numerous claims. … The plaintiff must show that (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

Evenstad v. State

178 Ariz. 578 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Aug 5, 1993

We agree with appellants that the qualified immunity provisions of A.R.S. section 12-820.02 do not apply to the duty of MVD to prescribe rules and regulations. … Clearly, MVD may be held liable for the grossly negligent issuance of drivers’ licenses. See § 12-820.02(5); Bird, 170 Ariz. at 23 , 821 P.2d at 290 (dicta) (qualified immunity applies to issuance of driver’s license).

Martinez v. New York City Tr. Auth.

2022 NY Slip Op 00252 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 13, 2022

At the same time, we find that the TA was not entitled to pretrial dismissal of the complaint on the basis of qualified immunity. … In that case, the Court of Appeals emphasized that a governmental body claiming qualified immunity based on its having studied a particular condition alleged to have caused injury must establish that the study was indeed

Emerson v. Borland

927 S.W.2d 709 · Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Sep 18, 1996

(ii) Qualified immunity. … To preclude immunity from suit, the clearly established right must be the federal right on which the claim for relief is based and must be established at the time of the violation. Elder v.

William A. Newman, Ph.D. v. Nereu F. Kock, Jr., Jacky Yuk-Chow So, Dan R. Jones, and Ray M. Keck, III

Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · Aug 6, 2008

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is a defense to federal law claims that shields governmental officials performing discretionary functions from liability as long as their actions could reasonably be thought … that violated clearly established law.

Arledge v. Sherrill

738 So. 2d 1215 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Aug 18, 1999

Additionally, a qualified immunity generally applies to most acts of government officials. 2 Id. In Harlow v. … [[Image here]] It should not be surprising, therefore, that our cases establish that the right the official is alleged to have violated must be “clearly established” in a more particularized, and hence more relevant, sense

Seaman v. Karr

114 Wash. App. 665 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 20, 2002

Clearly Established Law To determine whether a federal right is clearly established, we look first to United States Supreme Court precedent and then to decisions of the controlling Circuit Court of Appeals. … For qualified immunity purposes, “clearly established” means: “[T]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing *681 violates that right.

Prescott v. City of Meriden

80 Conn. App. 697 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Dec 30, 2003

On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that he did not qualify for the identifiable person-imminent harm exception to the doctrine of governmental immunity. … “The doctrines that determine the tort liability of municipal employees are well established.

JONATHAN CRUZ VS. THE CAMDEN COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT (L-3570-17, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 11, 2021

Dougherty Also Has Qualified Immunity "The affirmative defense of qualified immunity protects government officials from personal liability for discretionary actions taken in the course of their public responsibilities … "[Q]ualified immunity is applicable unless the official's conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right." Lapolla v. Cnty. of Union, 449 N.J. Super. 288, 304 (App. Div. 2017) (quoting Ramos v.

Gurski v. State Police Dept.

242 N.J. Super. 148 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 4, 1990

action is a violation) violates a clearly established right. … Plaintiffs would be able to convert the rule of qualified immunity that our cases plainly establish into a rule of virtually unqualified liability simply by alleging violation of extremely abstract rights.

Michael Gatto, as the Personal Representative of Michael Joseph Gatto v. City of Statesboro

Court of Appeals of Georgia · Oct 21, 2019

The defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims, asserting, inter alia, that the City is entitled to sovereign immunity, that Starling is entitled to qualified or official immunity, and that no act or omission of … The trial court ruled that Starling was entitled to sovereign immunity; the trial court never addressed whether she was entitled to qualified immunity as asserted by the defendants.

Mark Debower, plaintiff-appellee/cross-appellant v. County of Bremer, Iowa, Duane Hildebrandt, in His Individual and Official Capacities, and Dennis Miller, in His Individual and Official Capacities, defendants-appellants/cross-appellees.

Court of Appeals of Iowa · Apr 30, 2014

In the post-trial motion ruling the district court noted qualified immunity is defeated where a defendant violates a clearly establish right. … “[T]he doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable