Case law

In Re COVID-Related Restrictions on Religious Services

Superior Court of Delaware · Aug 28, 2023

“[E]ven where the law is clearly established and the scope of an official’s permissible conduct is clearly defined,” the qualified immunity defense may still shield officials from liability.84 “[I]f it was objectively … clearly established right.

Moore v. Dormin

252 A.D.2d 421 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 16, 1998

As for qualified privilege, the plaintiff clearly did not raise a triable issue as to the defendant’s motivation, under either the constitutional or the common-law definition of malice. … Defendant raised the bar of absolute and qualified immunity based on his capacity as a prosecutor and the official context of the statements, arguing that the communication was made by one law-enforcement official to another

Transit Authority of River City v. Bibelhauser

432 S.W.3d 171 · Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Sep 27, 2013

Governmental immunity is granted to agencies that have been established by an immune entity and that perform a “ ‘function integral to state government.’ ” Comair, Inc. v. … First, the court is to examine the origin, or “parent,” of the entity to determine if the entity is an agency (or alter ego) of a clearly immune parent. Id.

Oden v. Reader

935 S.W.2d 470 · Texas Court of Appeals, 12th District (Tyler) · Nov 26, 1996

To be entitled to summary judgment on the affirmative defense of qualified official immunity, Oden must establish that: (1) his position as county attorney has quasi-judicial status; (2) it was within his authority as county … Thus, the first two prongs of the qualified immunity defense have been proven by Oden.

Smith v. Our Lady of the Lake Hosp., Inc.

624 So. 2d 1239 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Aug 31, 1993

forth criteria for application of the qualified immunity. … conditions. [7] Had the legislature of this state envisioned that there is but one criteria for the application of the qualified immunity, the language of the statute would have clearly reflected this intent.

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

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).

Robinson v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority

334 Ga. App. 746 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Nov 23, 2015

Qualified immunity gives government officials performing discretionary functions complete protection from individual claims brought pursuant to 42 USC § 1983, if their conduct does not violate clearly established … Whether qualified immunity protects an official from suit is a question of law.

Texas Department of Public Safety v. Tanner

928 S.W.2d 731 · Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · Aug 21, 1996

Like Hullum and DPS, we use the term "qualified immunity” when referring to the federal defense and "official immunity” when referring to the state defense. 3 . … Furthermore, Hullum did not move for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity to the section 1983 claim.

Williams v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF UNIV.

763 N.W.2d 646 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Mar 31, 2009

Qualified immunity protects “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Maturi, as a government official, receives the protections of qualified immunity when performing dis *655 cretionary functions unless he could reasonably be expected to recognize that his conduct would violate clearly established

Hanse v. Phillips

276 Ga. App. 558 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Nov 29, 2005

Supreme Court has held that “qualified immunity is an entitlement not to stand trial rather than a mere defense to liability.” Id. at 124 (1). … And this “provides persuasive reasons for resolving the issue of... qualified immunity as early as possible in the legal proceedings.” Id.

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.

McLean v. McElhaney

289 Mich. App. 592 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 26, 2010

under MCL 691.1407(5) or qualified immunity under MCL 691.1407(2). 10 Odom v Wayne Co, 482 Mich 459, *605 479-480 ; 760 NW2d 217 (2008). … We note that if the trial court determines that Harma was entitled to absolute immunity under MCL 691.1407(5), it need not also determine whether he was entitled to qualified immunity under MCL 691.1407(2).

People v. Bylsma

294 Mich. App. 219 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 27, 2011

SECTION 4 IMMUNITY The MMMA provides a registration system for “qualifying patients” and “primary caregivers.” 3 See MCL 333.26426. … to immunity under § 4(b) of the MMMA.

Johnson v. Northside Residents Redevelopment Council

467 N.W.2d 826 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Apr 9, 1991

Qualified privileges do not act as an immunity from suit, but rather as an immunity from liability for damages. … These issues clearly do not involve immunity and should not be reviewed in this procedural posture.

Robbins v. Regents of University of California

25 Cal. Rptr. 3d 851 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 16, 2005

The trial court agreed that Suris was entitled to immunity, finding there was no evidence of a constitutional violation (and even if there was such a violation, it was not one of clearly established law), by virtue of LaVine … If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquires concerning qualified immunity.

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

Mayronne v. Vaught

94 La.App. 4 Cir. 2140 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Apr 13, 1995

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their Rconduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Qualified immunity does not act as an absolute bar, but rather as a threshold over which a plaintiff must pass to continue litigation.

Sherin v. Department of Human Resources

229 Ga. App. 621 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Nov 4, 1997

(a) “Government officials performing discretionary functions are granted a qualified immunity shielding them from imposition of personal liability pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … In this factual setting, it cannot be said that Reid’s failure to tell the Sherins about the masturbation was objectively unreasonable so as to deprive her of qualified immunity.

White v. Gurnon

67 Mass. App. Ct. 622 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Oct 30, 2006

Was the right clearly established!? … The qualified immunity doctrine shields government officials from monetary liability in their personal capacity provided the official’s conduct did not violate an individual’s rights that were “clearly established” under