Case law

Sauls v. Montgomery County

18 S.W.3d 310 · Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont) · May 18, 2000

Therefore, in view of the confusion regarding the terms, “official immunity” and “qualified immunity,” it is not clear from the record that appellees presented the affirmative defense of “qualified immunity” to the trial … Thus, we do not consider the merit of “qualified immunity” as a ground for summary judgment in favor of Williams, individually.

Caygill v. Jablonski

78 Ohio App. 3d 807 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 30, 1992

R.C. 4123.741 clearly provides immunity to a tortfeasor “employee” from liability for damages resulting from injuries received in the course of and arising out of the injured employee’s employment. … The General Assembly has established certain basic guidelines to assist in determining legislative intent.

Berry v. Craftsman

148 N.J. Super. 366 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 17, 1977

The intent of this statute is clearly to establish immunity for all governmental bodies except in conformity with the statute, N. J. S. A. 59 :1-2. English v. Newark Housing Auth., 138 N. J. Super. 425, 428 (App. … A. 59 :1-2 clearly dictates that defendant may not be held liable.

FTW REVOCABLE TRUST v. Young

151 P.3d 811 · Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · Feb 22, 2007

immunity because there exists no law giving Linda a clearly-established right to renew Stephen's mooring permit. … question of qualified immunity.

John Holeton v. City of Livonia

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 7, 2019

She -3- also identified grounds for concluding that she had qualified immunity and that the Holetons could not establish grounds for avoiding her qualified immunity. … An official has qualified immunity from suits under 42 USC 1983 when the official’s conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Leopardi v. Township of Maple Shade

363 N.J. Super. 313 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 14, 2003

Potentially liable parties, however, are entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Qualified immunity claims involve a two-step analysis.

Rankin v. Colman

10 Fla. L. Weekly 2056 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Aug 29, 1985

Characteristically the Court has defined *239 these elements by identifying the circumstances in which qualified immunity would not be available. … Qualified immunity is also an affirmative defense and is not raised by the complaint here.

Ramirez v. State of New York

143 A.D.3d 880 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 19, 2016

Following a nonjury trial, the Court of Claims dismissed the claims based upon, among other things, the doctrine of qualified immunity. We affirm. … To establish its entitlement to qualified immunity, the governmental body must demonstrate “that the relevant discretionary determination by the governmental body was the result of a deliberative decision-making process”

Taylor v. City of Shreveport

653 So. 2d 232 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Apr 7, 1995

Further, the court found that the officers enjoyed qualified immunity because *236 their conduct did not violate a "clearly established statutory or constitutional principle which a reasonable person would have known." … . § 1983 insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v.

Alake v. City of Boston

40 Mass. App. Ct. 610 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jun 27, 1996

child was a policy decision immune from suit, the decision by a school principal and teacher to send an injured handicapped child out to the playground unaccompanied was “clearly ministerial,” and therefore was not immunized … App. 4th 218, 227-228 (1995) (qualified immunity provision of statute did not abrogate general duty to supervise students); Doe v. Escambia County Sch. Bd., 599 So. 2d 226, 227 (Fla. Dist. Ct.

Santangelo v. State

101 A.D.2d 20 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 12, 1984

In any event, even if a rule of qualified immunity were to be applied here, we would affirm. … them only qualified immunity; see, also, Anderson v New York State Div. of Parole ( 546 F Supp 816 ) granting absolute immunity (see discussion, p 28).

Foremost Insurance Co. v. Public Service Commission

985 S.W.2d 793 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Aug 25, 1998

Public officials are provided qualified immunity for their official acts “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Respondent argues that even if the facts alleged are true, Respondent did not violate any clearly established right of Appellant.

Cavanaugh v. Doherty

243 A.D.2d 92 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 4, 1998

“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 … As such, accepting plaintiffs allegations as true for purposes of the motions to dismiss (see, McEvoy v Spencer, supra, at 95), we conclude that defendants have not established entitlement to qualified immunity.

Tidwell v. City & County of Denver

62 P.3d 1020 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Jun 2, 2002

vehicle operator or the governmental entity qualifies for immunity. … Therefore, he was not required to use his lights and sirens to qualify for immunity under the GIA.

State v. Saenz

967 S.W.2d 910 · Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Apr 16, 1998

Although Texas courts use the terms "qualified” and "official" immunity interchangeably, see, e.g., Travis v. … for federal (qualified) and state (official) immunity tests.

Steplight v. Belpulsi

76 Ohio App. 3d 384 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 25, 1991

Pursuant to Harlow , a person is immune from liability if he or she acts in such a way that the action does not violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person would have known. … The court restated *390 the purpose of the qualified immunity rule in Anderson v.

Kaur v. Dual Arch International

California Court of Appeal · Dec 11, 2024

Therefore, for the reasons articulated by Kachlon, we conclude that the immunity provided by section 2924, subdivision (d) is the qualified common interest immunity of section 47, subdivision (c). … The malice required to defeat section 47 qualified immunity is “ ‘actual malice.’ ” (Taus, at p. 721.; King v. U.S.

Nicole MacTaggart and Others / Glenn Wilder and Others / Irene Ray and Others / Anne Weiss and Others / Dianne L. Depalma and Others / Benjamin Brophy and Others / Robert Johnson and Others / Patricia Beckett and Others / Mary D. Lombardi

Massachusetts Superior Court · Feb 17, 2024

Scope of the UAGA Qualified Immunity Provision. … of the statutory qualified immunity was an affirmative defense.

Lee v. City of Cleveland

151 Ohio App. 3d 581 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 20, 2003

These agreed facts demonstrate no genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether Officers Svoboda and Wolf were entitled to qualified immunity. … Public officials who perform discretionary functions are generally immune in a Section 1983 action as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Les Eckert and Aberdeen Insurance Services, Inc. v. Jose Montemayor, in His Official Capacity as Commissioner of Insurance for the State of Texas and Texas Department of Insurance

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Mar 31, 2005

If we find an alleged violation of a constitutional right, we then consider if the right was “clearly established.” Id . … was “clearly established.”