Case law

Zisk v. City of Roseville

56 Cal. App. 3d 41 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 20, 1976

. §§ 1983 and/or 1985) because the city councilmen are not immune from liability thereunder and because the pleadings establish that the councilmen clearly violated established constitutional rights of plaintiffs. … The court found them immune from liability, stating: “[I]n varying scope, a qualified immunity is available to officers of the executive branch of government, the variation being dependent upon the scope of discretion and

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

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.

Morrison v. Horseshoe Casino

157 N.E.3d 406 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 20, 2020

Additionally, the defendant officers asserted that they are entitled to qualified immunity on the appellants’ Section 1983 claim because their conduct “did not violate a clearly established federal right which a reasonable … Plaintiff has failed to carry his burden to overcome the qualified immunity and establish the deprivation of a federally protected constitutional right.

Slingluff v. State

131 Haw. 239 · Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · Dec 31, 2013

Therefore, their actions were not protected by a qualified immunity. … Paderes are not entitled to qualified immunity, and the Circuit Court did not err when it denied their motion for summary judgment. B.

Wilkerson v. State

16 Brief Times Rptr. 394 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Mar 12, 1992

The plaintiff carries the burden of convincing the court that the law was “clearly established.” … Hence, we find no basis justifying penetration of the shield of qualified immunity afforded to these defendants. *1127 While the question of qualified immunity generally turns on objective factors, Harlow does not preclude

State v. Sieminski

92 N.E.3d 1252 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 26, 2017

“A statute must clearly proclaim its own retroactivity to overcome the presumption of prospective application. Retroactivity is not to be inferred.” State v. … Sieminski’s motion to dismiss because she is not a qualified individual pursuant to R.C. 2925.11(B)(2)(a)(viii), and therefore not eligible for immunity under R.C. 2925.11(B)(2)(b).

Purzycki v. Town of Fairfield

44 Conn. App. 359 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Feb 25, 1997

The plaintiffs claim that the trial court improperly determined that they failed to establish the imminent harm aspect of the identifiable person-imminent harm exception to the defendants’ qualified governmental immunity. … With this standard of review in mind, we turn now to the law concerning municipal immunity. “ ‘The doctrines that determine the tort liability of municipal employees are well established.

Peach County School District v. Austin

322 Ga. App. 368 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Jun 20, 2013

Sovereign immunity is not an affirmative defense that must be established by the party seeking its protection. … Moreover, qualified immunity is an entitlement not to stand trial, rather than a mere defense to liability, and “courts must consider the issue of a government employee’s qualified immunity from liability as the threshold

Benavidez v. Shutiva

2015 NMCA 65 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Mar 31, 2015

To overcome the qualified immunity defense, a “plaintiff 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 … Since the law was not clearly established, the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and the lower court’s decision was reversed.

Lipson v. Anesthesia Services, P.A.

790 A.2d 1261 · Superior Court of Delaware · Oct 3, 2001

Arguably, if ASPA could establish that it provides health care services (which clearly it does) and that it “follows a formal peer review process,” its governing body would qualify as a “professional review body” when engaged … Delaware clearly recognizes “a qualified privilege of employers to make communications regarding the character, qualifications, or job performance of an employee or former employee to those who have a legitimate interest

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.”

Thomas v. Collins

860 S.W.2d 500 · Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Jul 1, 1993

To meet this burden, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant’s conduct “violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Brown v. … Reviewing appellant’s pleading under this standard, his allegations are sufficient to allege that Collins violated his clearly established eighth amendment rights.

Martino v. Hogan

37 Mass. App. Ct. 710 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Dec 13, 1994

The defendants answered with denials and defenses including the defense of “qualified immunity.” … Finally, even were it assumed that the constitutional rule was “clearly established” and violated, so that qualified immunity did not attach, the defendants could be held individually liable for damages for the infractions

Brooks v. Northwood Little League, Inc.

327 S.C. 400 · Court of Appeals of South Carolina · Jun 9, 1997

Some courts have focused on the nature of the land itself and have established prerequisites to immunity, namely that the land qualifying for protection is: (1) rural, (2) undeveloped, (3) appropriate for the type of activities … The plain language of our recreational use statute’s provisions clearly protects the Respondents because it grants immunity to “landowners.” 7 S.C.Code Ann. §§ 27-3-10 to 27-3-70; see also T.W.

Avila v. Butt Thornton & Baher, P.C.

New Mexico Court of Appeals · Jun 10, 2025

officers are protected by qualified immunity. … qualified immunity is available to BTB cannot be upheld.

Frank D. Unger and Sherri J. Unger v. Susan Pierce

Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia · Nov 1, 2023

Pierce were in violation of a clearly established constitutional right, nor were they fraudulent, malicious, or oppressive. … Code, 29-12A-1, et seq. is 3  entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability for official acts if the involved conduct did not violate clearly established

Tyner v. Department of Social & Health Services

137 Wash. App. 545 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 13, 2007

Qualified Immunity ¶26 DSHS contends that its officers are entitled to qualified immunity from Tyner’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 First *561 Amendment claim because “[t]here is no law clearly establishing that criticizing one’s supervisor … We explained qualified immunity in Wilson: Public officials are immune from suit unless the “law clearly proscribed the actions” they took.

Golden Rule Insurance v. Long

113 N.C. App. 187 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 23, 1993

In order to defeat the qualified immunity, plaintiff had to show that defendant violated some clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … This standard determines if further proceedings are barred by qualified immunity by examining the law in existence at the time of the offense to determine if it contained “clearly established . . . rights of which a reasonable

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.