Case law

Texas Department of Public Safety and Steven McCraw in His Official Capacity as Director of the Texas Department of Public Safety v. Maria Luisa Mejia Sunuc, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of Marcos Antonio Castro Estrada, and as Next Friend to L.M. and H.M., Minors

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Feb 3, 2022

Alternatively, DPS argued that it could conclusively establish that its troopers were entitled to official immunity, thereby cloaking DPS in derivative immunity. See DeWitt v. … Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378–81 (2007) (holding that video evidence can conclusively establish that an officer is entitled to qualified immunity from an excessive force claim). 5 DPS’s primary argument on appeal is that

Sonny Boy, LLC v. Asnani

879 So. 2d 25 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · May 28, 2004

In my view, two different standards were intended and clearly imposed by these provisions. … Clearly section 718.303(1) was not involved, nor was it mentioned.

Debra Sue Rodriguez and MacEdonio Coc Rodriguez v. Donna Marie Currey

District Court of Appeal of Florida · Apr 3, 2025

This occurs when an order violates “a clearly established” legal principle. See id. at 355. “A classic example . . . is a trial court’s failure to follow binding precedent.” State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. … 355 (“There is an important difference between a departure from the essential requirements of law where there has been a violation of a clearly established principle of law and a case that involves an issue of law where

Melinda Butler v. Sarah Harter

152 So. 3d 705 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 1, 2014

Work-Product Privilege and Motions for Attorney’s Fees It is well-established that “work product retains its qualified immunity after the original litigation terminates, regardless of whether or not the subsequent … The federal district court held that counsel waived attorney-client privilege when he testified regarding the basis for the offer, and he clearly waived the privilege when he established a record regarding the basis for

Duran v. Furr's Supermarkets, Inc.

921 S.W.2d 778 · Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso) · May 1, 1996

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY In Point of Error Two, Duran contends that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Romero on the basis of qualified immunity. … to conclusively establish one of the elements of the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, the trial court erred in granting Romero’s motion for summary judgment.

Ramos v. Flowers

429 N.J. Super. 13 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 21, 2012

In other words, “[qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” … established in 2006 for qualified-immunity purposes.

Baxter v. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

165 Wis. 2d 298 · Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · Oct 24, 1991

The meaning of "reasonable accommodation" was not clearly established. 6 "[T]he right the official is alleged to have violated must have been 'clearly established' in a more particularized, and hence more relevant, sense: … That term and the regulations surrounding it cannot fairly be read as clearly establishing any such rights. 8 *310 However, because the basic requirement of "reasonable accommodation" was clearly established by 1985, if the

RADIATION DATA, INC. VS. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (L-1260-16, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

456 N.J. Super. 550 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 2, 2018

Most pertinent to the present appeal, defendants invoked principles of qualified immunity and argued that RDI's constitutional and NJCRA claims must be dismissed because defendants violated no "clearly established" laws … Therefore, "unless the plaintiff's allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery."

In Re Sloan Estate

212 Mich. App. 357 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 25, 1995

"Fees for fees” claims are brought in behalf of the attorney seeking the fees and clearly do not benefit the estate because they do not increase or preserve the estate’s assets. … On the other hand, at least one jurisdiction has permitted such claims, adopting the policy argument that precluding "fees for fees” claims may have a deleterious effect on the ability of an estate to retain qualified and

Gallegos v. Freeman

172 Wash. App. 616 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 7, 2013

Accordingly, because the particularized right at issue was not “clearly established,” the trial court correctly ruled that the police officer was entitled to qualified immunity against this claim. … In evaluating a claim of qualified immunity, we must bear in mind that *629 courts “undermine the values qualified immunity seeks to promote . .. when what is not clearly established is held to be so.” al-Kidd, 131 S.

Pensacola Christian College v. Bruhn

80 So. 3d 1046 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 30, 2011

Toyota Distribs., LLC., 60 So.3d 1155, 1157-58 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (“A special employer qualifies as such where ‘(1) there was a contract for hire, either express or implied, between the special employer and the employee; … Hecht Invs., Ltd., 924 So.2d 944, 945-46 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (holding that W-2 tax forms alone did not establish an employment relationship). Rather, as this court stated in Hoar Construction v.

Feis v. KING COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT.

165 Wash. App. 525 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 19, 2011

resolution of a qualified immunity claim is essential." … established right so as to rebut the officers' assertion of qualified immunity.

Fasciana v. Electronic Data Systems Corp.

829 A.2d 160 · Court of Chancery of Delaware · Feb 27, 2003

As to these allegations, Fasciana is clearly being held to account for representations he made to third parties - Kidder and GECC - as an agent of EDS. … Notwithstanding the use of the term "escrow agent" it is clearly established that "[a]n escrow holder is not as such an agent of either party to the transaction until the event occurs which terminates the escrow relation.

Board of Regents of State v. Snyder

826 So. 2d 382 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 19, 2002

Qualified immunity protects government actors performing discretionary functions from liability and suit for civil damages *390 unless their conduct violates clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights. … Thus, qualified immunity in this case hinges upon whether Mr. Snyder's First Amendment right was clearly established.

BRYHEIM JAMAR BASKIN VS. RAFAEL MARTINEZ (L-0901-14, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 14, 2018

"The doctrine of qualified immunity operates to shield 'government officials performing discretionary functions generally . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Ct. 1765, 1776 (2015) ("Qualified immunity is no immunity at all if 'clearly established' law can simply be defined as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.").

Chavez v. Board of County Commissioners

130 N.M. 753 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Jul 23, 2001

Merits of Qualified Immunity Issue {14} Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Clearly Established Law {16} Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff failed to meet her burden of showing that in October 1995 it was clearly established that law enforcement officers

Cockrell v. Board of Regents of New Mexico State University

127 N.M. 478 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · May 7, 1999

An official is entitled to qualified immunity on a motion for summary judgment if the right allegedly violated was not so clearly established that an objectively reasonable, similarly situated official would have known that … date of termination did not clearly establish such a right in the school principal, and therefore, the officials were entitled to their individual defense of qualified immunity from suit.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. CHRISTOPHER KIM (16-07-0591 AND 17-02-0115, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 21, 2018

at 123 (analyzing the exemption in the context of a claim of qualified immunity). … at 343 (holding "it is only when the facts known to the prosecutor clearly indicate or clearly establish the appropriateness of an instruction that the duty of the prosecution arises"); cf. State v.

Corum v. University of North Carolina Ex Rel. Board of Governors

97 N.C. App. 527 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 20, 1990

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 … Further, the qualified immunity argument turns on the issue of whether “clearly established law” has been violated. Harlow, supra. In accord with Mitchell v.

Altshuler v. City of Seattle

63 Wash. App. 389 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 18, 1991

Kitsap Cy., supra (police officers entitled to qualified immunity where nature and scope of plaintiffs' right to gather shellfish not clearly established); cf. Harper v. … To overcome a qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must do more than identify a clearly established legal test and then allege that the defendant has violated it.