Case law

Masters v. San Bernardino County Employees Retirement Ass'n

32 Cal. App. 4th 30 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 19, 1995

That is, while a public employee’s immunity is qualified, the immunity of a public entity for misrepresentation by its employee, whether intentional or negligent, is absolute. (Gov. Code, § 818.8; see Harshbarger v. … case to case, of the requisite qualifying facts.

Baker v. Clover

177 Ariz. 37 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · May 25, 1993

Civil rights liability is, however, circumscribed by qualified immunity. … of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken____” Anderson v.

State v. McInnes

2026 Ohio 734 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 5, 2026

“The doctrine of qualified immunity generally shields public officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages to the extent that their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … to qualified immunity.

Seaman v. Karr

59 P.3d 701 · 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: The contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.

Wark v. Board of County Commissioners

47 P.3d 711 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Apr 25, 2002

Because the trial court's finding is not clearly erroneous, we may not disturb it. B. … Although the county argued that plaintiffs' claims were barred under the qualified immunity doctrine, the trial court's ruling is primarily based on the insufficiency of the allegations in the complaint.

Braham v. Newbould

Connecticut Appellate Court · Oct 6, 2015

‘‘Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established … ‘‘If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.’’ Brooks v. Sweeney, supra, 299 Conn. 217.

KRISTINA MOFFATT VS. PARSIPPANY TROY HILLS BOARD OF EDUCATION (L-2437-14, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 16, 2018

Immunity applies when snow or ice is the alleged cause of the accident. … Super. at 269 ("In the absence of a clearly established landlord-tenant relationship, our courts have previously rejected attempts by slip and fall plaintiffs to classify a particular public entity as akin to a commercial

Doane v. Helenville Mutual Insurance Co.

216 Wis. 2d 345 · Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · Jan 29, 1998

Rather, the parties' *352 disagreement centers on whether Ehle qualifies as an "owner" entitled to immunity under the statute either because his shanty constitutes a statutory "structure," or because he is an "occupier," … CONCLUSION A portable ice shanty located on a frozen lake does not qualify as recreational "property" and is insufficient to establish its owner as an "occupant" of the lake entitled to recreational immunity.

Yoder, J. v. McCarthy Const., Inc

291 A.3d 1 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 31, 2023

Whether [JNOV] is required because [McCarthy] is clearly entitled to statutory[-]employer immunity? 2. … McCarthy’s Brief at 9.11 First Issue In McCarthy’s first issue, it asserts that JNOV is required because it is clearly entitled to statutory-employer immunity. Id. at 20.

Johnson v. Morris

445 N.W.2d 563 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Oct 19, 1989

If the law allegedly violated is clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since reasonably competent public officials should know the law governing their conduct. Harlow v. … that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken. * * * ” Id.

Peterson v. Foley

559 S.W.3d 346 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Nov 1, 2018

Qualified Immunity For purposes of determining qualified immunity for government officials, the duties of those officials are categorized as either ministerial or discretionary. … Although the arguments advanced by the parties on appeal primarily concern the issue of qualified immunity, it is well-established that this Court may affirm the trial court for any reason in the record. E.g., Ky.

Kraft v. Adams

248 Ga. App. 141 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Jan 23, 2001

Once that is established, the burden then shifts to the plaintiff to establish that the defendant violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. … This requirement that plaintiff show a clearly established right is a strenuous one. . . .

Karchefske v. Department of Mental Health

143 Mich. App. 1 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 20, 1985

S Ct 855 ; 55 L Ed 2d 24 (1978) (qualified immunity for *6 prison officials and officers), Scheuer v Rhodes, 416 US 232 ; 94 S Ct 1683 ; 40 L Ed 2d 90 (1974) (qualified immunity for governor and other executive officers) … Clearly, the sovereign immunity of the states was well established at common law at the time that § 1983 was enacted.

Akron v. Pari

2019 Ohio 1083 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 27, 2019

Pasco’s motion to dismiss because the unambiguous language of R.C. 2925.11(B)(2) limits immunity to minor drug possession offenses. … This Court concluded that the terms of R.C. 2925.11(B)(2) are unambiguous: The plain language of R.C. 2925.11(B)(2)(b) clearly provides qualified individuals with immunity for a minor drug possession offense

Peter Klassen v. Gaines County, Texas, and Gaines County Deputy Sheriffs Ken Ketron and Clint Low

Texas Court of Appeals, 11th District (Eastland) · Jul 15, 2021

“[O]fficers are entitled to qualified immunity under [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time. … doctrine of qualified immunity only applies to “individuals.”

Gauthier v. Town of Dracut

19 Mass. L. Rptr. 579 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Jun 27, 2005

Qualified Immunity The defendants claim as an affirmative defense that Shaw and Piendak are entitled to summary judgment under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … , those rights were clearly established.

Marshall v. Montaplast of N. Am., Inc.

575 S.W.3d 650 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jun 13, 2019

This Court held that the rule prohibiting noncompete agreements qualified as such. Id. … Immunity is a shield. It frees a party from the burden of litigation. It does not create a sword or a right to engage in an act.

Nguyen v. Grain Valley R-5 School District

353 S.W.3d 725 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Dec 13, 2011

Where an affirmative defense is asserted in a motion to dismiss, a trial court may dismiss the petition only if the petition clearly establishes “on its face and without exception” that the defense applies and the claim is … But a “departmentally-mandated duty” may clearly arise from sources other than statutes or regulations.

Simmons v. Fabian

743 N.W.2d 281 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Dec 31, 2007

Qualified immunity, the most common variety, protects officials so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id. … By focusing on “the objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law,” the test for qualified immunity is intended both to avoid excessively disrupting government functioning

Delgado v. City of New York

86 A.D.3d 502 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 28, 2011

“A government official performing a discretionary function is entitled to qualified immunity provided his or her conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … To be entitled to qualified immunity, it must be established that it was objectively reasonable for the police officer involved to believe that his or her conduct was appropriate under the circumstances, or that officers