Case law

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.

Bischoff v. Calhoun County Prosecutor

173 Mich. App. 802 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 20, 1988

which is essentially investigative or administrative and therefore entitled to only the protection of the qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

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.

Frohriep v. Flanagan

278 Mich. App. 665 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 29, 2008

Lower level officers, *677 employees, and agents are extended only qualified immunity. This immunity exists when the individual is engaged in discretionary acts which are performed in good faith. … could establish the claim and justify recovery.”

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

Dooley v. St. Louis County

187 S.W.3d 882 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Apr 4, 2006

from liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity protects public officials from personal liability under [Section] 1983 when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

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.

Barry Wion v. Janie Cockrell, Ann Byrom, J. Missildine, A.R. Massingil, and Kelli Ward

Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco) · Mar 30, 2011

Qualified Immunity Wion contends that the trial court erred when it found he failed to state material facts that would overcome the TDCJ employees’ qualified immunity defense. … legal rules that were "clearly established" at the time it was taken.

Oliver v. Smith

290 Mich. App. 678 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 23, 2010

The wrist and hand injury is not clearly attributable to defendant alone and instead may just as fairly be attributed to plaintiff. … The Odom Court stated that employees enjoy a qualified right to immunity if (1) the employee’s challenged acts were undertaken during the course of employment and the employee was acting, or reasonably believed he or she

Burns v. Davis

196 Ariz. 155 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Aug 10, 1999

Instead, a qualified immunity may be most appropriate. For example, in Ellish v. … We find this necessary because Arizona case law is not clearly settled on this subject.

Hurt v. Parker

462 S.W.3d 403 · Court of Appeals of Kentucky · May 1, 2015

established priorities and needs.” … Thus, the principal was entitled to qualified immunity.

Donald Xiques v. Charme Knight

Court of Appeals of Tennessee · Aug 21, 2003

We conclude that the defendant, a state prosecutor, is entitled to qualified immunity because her statements did not violate “clearly established” federal law, a requirement for recovering … Plaintiff argues that the issues in these two cases are not identical, because the Sixth Circuit opinion merely dealt with the issue of qualified immunity, and whether or not defendant had violated “clearly established law

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.

Leang v. Jersey City Bd. of Educ.

399 N.J. Super. 329 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 2, 2008

She reiterated her conclusion that they were entitled to a qualified immunity as state actors. … Thus, the motion judge erred in granting the JCMC a qualified immunity under N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.7 and the summary judgment as to the JCMC on the ground of a qualified immunity is reversed. IX.

Ziccardi v. Commonwealth

109 Pa. Commw. 628 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 8, 1987

Federal courts have applied only a qualified immunity on behalf of Commonwealth officials in section 1983 claims. … Specifically, under the United States Supreme Court’s pronouncement in Wood, the immunity defense would be unavailable to the secretary if the constitutional rights which he allegedly infringed were clearly established at

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.

Richard E. Finlan (And Don Venable - Dismissed) v. Dallas Independent School District

Texas Court of Appeals, 11th District (Eastland) · Oct 24, 2002

The defense of qualified immunity shields governmental officials from liability under Section 1983 for civil damages if A their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … It did not address the first inquiry in the qualified immunity analysis; that is, it did not address the question of law whether the law was clearly established in 1992 that the filing of a civil suit, alleged to be malicious

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

Feldman v. Hoffman

107 A.3d 821 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 19, 2014

Hoffman’s duties. 6 The trial court further found that the Letter “was not addressed solely to [Feldman] but to a number of people, and [Feldman] did not clearly establish that [Decedent’s] original note was her property … Hoffman qualifies as a high-ranking public official and it was alleged that he was acting within the scope of his duties, he qualifies for high official immunity. II.

State v. Andrews

424 S.C. 304 · Court of Appeals of South Carolina · Jul 18, 2018

On appeal, Andrews argues the circuit court erred in (1) denying him immunity under the Protection of Persons and Property Act 1 **308 (the Act) due to inconsistent witness testimony, (2) refusing to qualify Investigator … He stated shootings typically caused "memory fragmentation[, a]nd after a couple of sleep cycles[,] you're able to consolidate your memories" and remember the event more clearly.