Case law

Dobson v. McClennen

238 Ariz. 389 · Arizona Supreme Court · Nov 20, 2015

A. ¶ 8 The AMMA broadly immunizes registered qualifying patients for their medical use of marijuana, providing: A registered qualifying patient ... is not subject to arrest, prosecution or penalty in any manner, or denial … When read together, the statutory provisions suggest that the AMMA gives qualifying patients a limited defense rather than a general immunity in (A)(3) prosecutions. ¶ 18 We reject, however, Petitioners’ argument that qualifying

Galen v. County of Los Angeles

322 F. Supp. 2d 1045 · District Court, C.D. California · Jan 9, 2004

established at the time the search took place, the officers were entitled to the defense of qualified immunity. … “[A] plaintiff can only survive summary judgment on a defense claim of qualified immunity if the plaintiff can both establish a substantial showing of deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard and establish that, without

Roman v. Appleby

558 F. Supp. 449 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 22, 1983

Immunity Defendants’ defense of qualified or “good faith” immunity is much more persuasive. The immunity concept is based upon the need to ensure principled and conscientious governmental decision-making. Crowder v. … established law, thereby entitling her to the defense of qualified immunity, I also find that defense of immunity is supported by the provisions of the Child Protective Services Law (CPSL) of 1975, 11 P.S. § 2201, et seq

Torres v. Damicis

853 A.2d 1233 · Supreme Court of Rhode Island · Jun 24, 2004

We concluded that “[a]ny damages caused by the alleged negligence of a municipal budding inspector during the performance of his or her employment, therefore, qualifies for the tort immunity provided by the general public … Unless Torres can prove that his circumstances qualify under one of the exceptions to the public duty doctrine, we see no reason to depart from this general grant of immunity.

Sevier v. City of Lawrence

853 F. Supp. 1360 · District Court, D. Kansas · May 27, 1994

As our jurisprudence makes clear, when a defendant raises qualified immunity, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish the defendant violated clearly established constitutional rights. City of Lakewood v. … In Medina we determined that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established, 960 F.2d at 1498-99 , and in Watson we remanded for a finding on that issue, 857 F.2d

Gorman v. Roberts

909 F. Supp. 1493 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Oct 18, 1995

Qualified Immunity Defendant Hunt further asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity in this action, because he did not violate any clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable public official knew … Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability if their conduct violates no clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. Courson v.

Linda A. Nelson, Paul R. Nelson, Evelyn Philbert, Laura Moore, and Charles Moore v. Denise Balazic, Dick Moore, and Bill Duncan

802 F.2d 1077 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 10, 1986

Having held that Balazic is only entitled to qualified immunity we must now determine whether her conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Even assuming arguendo that a constitutional right was violated, and we specifically do not address this issue, Balazic should be immune because such right was not clearly established at that time. See Martinez.

Stevens-Rucker v. City of Columbus

242 F. Supp. 3d 608 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 16, 2017

Qualified Immunity It is well-established that “[p]o-lice officers are immune from civil liability unless, in the course of performing their discretionary functions, they violate the plaintiffs clearly established constitutional … Accordingly, Frenz is entitled to qualified immunity for his use of force against White because Plaintiff has failed to establish either prong of the two-part test.

Alex Wayne Morton v. Jeremy Kirkwood

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 8, 2013

Qualified immunity does not apply where the facts show that the official violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights and where the law clearly established those rights at the time of the alleged misconduct. … Kirkwood would nonetheless be entitled to qualified immunity unless Morton can show that the law clearly established his rights at the time of the putative misconduct. See Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232.

Marx v. Gumbinner

716 F. Supp. 1434 · District Court, S.D. Florida · May 19, 1989

Qualified Immunity Even if probable cause did not exist, Defendants are still entitled to qualified immunity because those Defendants reasonably believed such probable cause existed. … Accordingly, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for Plaintiff’s arrest. C.

Chagnon v. Bell

468 F. Supp. 927 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 29, 1979

These holdings clarify the scope of acts for which officials are entitled to qualified immunity. … In view of the state of the law at the time defendants acted, it is clear that the constitutional rights alleged to have been violated by defendants were anything but “clearly established.”

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.

Chennault v. Mitchell

923 F. Supp. 2d 765 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Feb 7, 2013

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil lawsuits when their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … If the facts alleged do not establish that the official violated a constitutional right, then “there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity” and the official is entitled to qualified immunity.

Greene v. Camreta

588 F.3d 1011 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 10, 2009

If a government official “could ... have reasonably but mistakenly believed that his or her conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right,” he is entitled to qualified immunity. Jackson v. … Because Camreta’s alleged misrepresentation in support of his request for a protective custody order — again, assuming it occurred — violated the Greenes’ clearly established rights, he is not entitled to qualified immunity

McDonald v. Krajewski

649 F. Supp. 370 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 13, 1986

Qualified Immunity Defendant Krajewski also requests dismissal of plaintiffs complaint on the basis of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects the official from liability for damages only when the official’s conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

MacLean v. Secor

876 F. Supp. 695 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 14, 1995

established at the time of his confinement, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Defendants, however, are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim because, at the time plaintiff was detained, this liberty interest was not a “clearly established” right.

Rich v. Erie County Department of Human Resources

106 Ohio App. 3d 88 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 25, 1995

Qualified immunity may not be asserted as a defense to an action alleging the failure of a public official to perform ministerial acts. (Scot Lad Foods, Inc. v. … It draws a distinction between ministerial and discretionary duties, and between absolute and qualified immunity.

Whittington v. Town of Surfside

490 F. Supp. 2d 1239 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jun 6, 2007

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … As stated above, “[qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

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.

Landy v. Irizarry

884 F. Supp. 788 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 5, 1995

To be entitled to qualified immunity, a police officer must establish facts satisfying one of two tests: “either that his conduct did not violate ‘clearly established rights’ of which a reasonable person would have known, … , do not violate clearly established rights of which they should have known.