Case law

Carrubba v. Moskowitz

81 Conn. App. 382 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Feb 3, 2004

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Qualified immunity typically “turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the action . . . assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken . . . .”

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.

olsen v. barre

Vermont Superior Court · Mar 1, 2024

Qualified official immunity The Town argues that, regardless whether Mr. Frey may have operated his cruiser negligently, his conduct is protected by qualified official immunity. … The Vermont Supreme Court appears to have clearly ruled that police officers responding to emergency calls are, by statute, not entitled to qualified immunity, and are potentially liable for recklessness, though not negligence

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.

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

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.

Onnette v. Reed

832 S.W.2d 450 · Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Jun 25, 1992

Regarding appellant’s section 1983 claim, appellees argue that “[the TDCJ employees] are entitled to qualified immunity.” Prison officials and officers may rely on qualified immunity in section 1983 actions. … To meet this burden, the plaintiff must estab *453 lish that the defendant’s conduct “violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Brown v.

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.

ELENE H. v. County of Los Angeles

220 Cal. App. 3d 1445 · California Court of Appeal · May 2, 1990

Defendants contend that their conduct was totally immunized and, if not totally immunized, was within the range of qualified immunity for law enforcement officers recognized by federal law. (Malley v. … Clearly the behavior of a law enforcement officer which is grossly incompetent or demonstrates knowing disregard for established legal rights is not protected by qualified immunity. *1454 In the case at bench, the defendants

Stanley v. Barone

210 Conn. App. 239 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Jan 25, 2022

clearly established constitu- tional right. … Thus, in order to overcome the defendants’ qualified immunity in the present case, the plaintiff was required to allege facts that would establish that the defendants violated a clearly established constitutional right.

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.

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.

Fernez v. Calabrese

760 So. 2d 1144 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 7, 2000

The court pointed out that under the qualified immunity doctrine, government officials performing discretionary functions are generally shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … If there are factual disputes, clearly they should be resolved by the trial court. [2] Rule 9.130 states a party must be denied sovereign or qualified immunity "as a matter of law," but this is not always easy to determine

Malik Muntaqim, Adc 088633 v. Wendy Kelley, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction

641 S.W.3d 35 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Feb 16, 2022

conduct violated that clearly established right. … Otherwise, a state official is immune from individual-capacity suits if his or her actions did not violate clearly established principles of law of which a reasonable person would have knowledge.

State v. McQueen

293 Mich. App. 644 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 23, 2011

In addition, § 4(i) provides immunity for a “person” who assists a registered qualifying patient with “using or administering marihuana.” … Defendants do not claim immunity on the basis of being in the vicinity of the medical use of marijuana; they claim immunity on the basis of their assistance to registered qualifying patients with “using or administering”

Anastasio v. Planning Board of West Orange

197 N.J. Super. 457 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 10, 1984

Since the trial court at the motion to dismiss the complaint had held that the affirmative defense of qualified immunity was available, the next issue to confront the court is the one dealing with qualified immunity. … It then became the task of the Supreme Court to set guidelines for defining the scope of qualified immunity. The guidelines for the scope of qualified immunity were established in the case of Wood v.

Stucchio v. Tincher

726 So. 2d 372 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 5, 1999

Clearly this testimony is absolutely privileged. See Fridovich v. Fridovich, 598 So.2d 65 (Fla.1992). Suppose the information was divulged not in court but in a pretrial deposition. … Clearly, the law before Fridovich established an absolute privilege for a statement made "that had some relation" to a judicial proceeding.

Maewal v. Adventist Health Systems/Sunbelt, Inc.

868 S.W.2d 886 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Feb 8, 1994

Appellant contends appellees failed to provide written notice as required by the act and therefore fail to qualify for immunity. We reject this contention. … Second, appellant contends appellees failed to establish lack of malice, an affirmative defense, as a matter of law and do not qualify for immunity. Texas Medical Practice Act.