-
New Mexico Court of Appeals September 18, 2019Not cited Unpublished
Standard of Review and Qualified Immunity {6} The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials, including police officers, from liability for civil claims “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established
{8} We use a two-step analysis when evaluating a claim of qualified immunity: “(1) the defendant’s alleged conduct violated a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the conduct
Even if Plaintiff satisfies the first step of the analysis, Defendants are still entitled to qualified immunity if the law governing the violation was not “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation.
-
501 N.W.2d 683 Court of Appeals of Minnesota June 22, 1993 No. C5-93-236
State officials are entitled to qualified immunity when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.
“The test for qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage is an objective one.” Johnson v. Hay, 931 F.2d 456, 460 (8th Cir.1991).
Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before commencement of discovery. Mitchell v.
-
854 P.2d 242 Idaho Supreme Court May 13, 1993 No. 19628
Thus, in order to determine whether Richardson, in his individual capacity, was entitled to qualified immunity, we must ask: 1. Was there a clearly established law; 2.
This prong of the qualified immunity analysis is a compound question: (1) did Arnzen have a clearly established right; and (2) did Richardson’s conduct violate it?
We further hold that Richardson, in his individual capacity, was not entitled to qualified immunity; the law was clearly established that Arnzen had a property right to due process guarantees before he was terminated, Richardson’s
-
1999 NMCA 084, 984 P.2d 760 New Mexico Court of Appeals April 28, 1999 No. 18,459
The issue on appeal with respect to § 1983 is whether the Individual Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the ground that their alleged misconduct had not been “clearly established” in 1994 to be contrary to the federally
Such a person, however, is entitled to qualified immunity from suit unless at the time of the alleged misconduct it was “clearly established” that the misconduct violated federal law. See Yount v.
{19} To determine whether Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity, we must examine what was “clearly established” in 1994 when the alleged misconduct occurred. In Robinson v.
-
267 P.3d 1022 Court of Appeals of Washington December 19, 2011 No. 66062-4-I
of a qualified immunity claim is essential."
¶ 22 Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from civil liability for damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of
¶ 38 Feis has failed to allege violation of a sufficiently particularized and clearly established right so as to rebut the officers' assertion of qualified immunity.
-
795 A.2d 1212 Supreme Court of Vermont February 25, 2002 No. 00-576
Plaintiffs also argue that the commissioners are not protected by qualified immunity because § 236 states the “clearly established law” in Vermont for revoking a liquor license of which the commissioners should have known.
immunity.
To overcome the commissioners’ qualified immunity defense, therefore, plaintiffs must identify a “clearly established” right that was violated by the rescission of their application.
-
450 S.E.2d 421 Supreme Court of Georgia December 5, 1994 Nos. S94A1614, S94A1615
Moreover, an order denying a claim of qualified immunity in a § 1983 action is not substantially separate from the issues raised by the complaint. Compare Scroggins v.
Indeed, the basic issue is substantially identical: A § 1983 complaint alleges that the defendant violated federal law, whereas the defendant’s claim of qualified immunity asserts that clearly established federal law was not violated
Likewise, a pretrial denial of a claim of qualified immunity is not effectively unreviewable on appeal. Compare Scroggins v. Edmondson, supra at 432 (1) (c).
-
2007 WY 188, 171 P.3d 1070 Wyoming Supreme Court December 4, 2007 No. S-07-0046
DISCUSSION [113] Qualified immunity shields public officials from suit on § 1983 civil rights claims when they are performing discretionary functions unless their conduct violates "clearly established statutory or constitutional
Layland had failed to show that he had a clearly established right not to be arrested under the cireumstances. On that basis, the district court held that Deputy Stevens was entitled to qualified immunity.
Layland argues that Deputy Stevens is not entitled to qualified immunity because it was clearly established and a reasonable officer would have known that entry onto Mr.
-
9 P.3d 1251 Supreme Court of Kansas July 26, 2000 No. 81,835
Qualified immunity shields public officials from personal liability unless their conduct violates clearly established constitutional rights. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 73 L. Ed. 2d 396 , 102 S. Ct. 2727 (1982).
See generally, Meeker, “Clearly Established” Law in Qualified Immunity Analysis for Civil Rights Actions in the Tenth Circuit, 35 Washburn L.J. 79 (1995). Cohen illustrates the weakness of Goldbarth’s position.
In other words, the officials did not violate any clearly established law when they applied the sexual harassment policy to Cohen. Clearly Bowman and Patton are entitled to qualified immunity.
-
117 A.3d 1206 Supreme Court of New Jersey July 13, 2015 No. A-88-13
The doctrine of qualified immunity operates to shield “government officials performing discretionary functions generally ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or
Under the test for qualified immunity, these officers confronted a question of uncertain application of the exemption to the unlawful possession statute, arguably taking it beyond the “clearly established” framework of our law.
at 1774 , 191 L.Ed.2d at 866-67 (reiterating that qualified immunity protects public officials from suit for violations of clearly established statutory or constitutional rights unless action was plainly incompetent or knowing
-
735 N.W.2d 383 Nebraska Supreme Court July 13, 2007 No. S-06-889
Qualified immunity provides a shield from liability for public officials sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in their individual capacity, so long as an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights
. 32 Whether an official may prevail in his or her qualified immunity defense depends upon the objective reasonableness of his or her conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law. 33 An official sued under 42
established.” 35 Where appropriate, the issues relating to qualified immunity may be determined via a separate trial or evidentiary hearing. 36 In some instances, it might be unclear, based upon the record before a court,
-
869 P.2d 1378 Idaho Supreme Court March 2, 1994 No. 20109
State, 123 Idaho 899 , 854 P.2d 242 (1993), the Court stated a three-part test to determine whether a party as *286 serting qualified immunity is entitled to the defense: 1. Was there a clearly established law? 2.
Did the conduct of the party asserting qualified immunity violate a clearly established right of the party claiming the violation? 3. Was the conduct of the party asserting qualified immunity reasonable? Id.
In this case, there was a clearly established law. A public employer may not enforce conditions of employment that infringe on an employee’s constitutional right of free speech. Connick v.
-
693 So. 2d 586 District Court of Appeal of Florida February 20, 1997 No. 96-2736
The trial court should have sustained Commissioner Junior's claim of qualified immunity, however, because the conduct forming the basis of the complaint by the Reeds does not amount to a violation of a clearly established right under
Fitzgerald , the Supreme Court decided that government officials are entitled to qualified immunity from suit when performing discretionary functions if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional
Forsyth that "[u]nless the plaintiff's allegations state a claim for violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery." 472 U.S. at 526 , 105
-
493 S.E.2d 21 Court of Appeals of Georgia October 15, 1997 Nos. A97A2240, A97A2241
Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from ‘liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known
The test for determining whether a defendant is protected from suit by reason of qualified immunity is the objective reasonableness of the defendant’s conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law; in this regard, a reasonably
“For the law to be clearly established to the point that qualified immunity does not apply, the law must have earlier been developed in such a concrete and factually defined context to make it obvious to all reasonable government actors
-
453 N.W.2d 31 Supreme Court of Minnesota March 23, 1990 No. C8-88-2614
Qualified immunity is available if the officer did “not violate clearly established stat *39 utory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.
Simply stated, if the law the officer allegedly violated was “clearly established” there would exist no immunity, but, if not, qualified immunity would be available. Harlow, 457 U.S. at 819 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738-39 .
Alleging violation of a generalized right, even though “clearly established,” would “convert the rule of qualified immunity * * * into a rule of virtually unqualified liability simply by alleging violation of extremely abstract rights
-
821 So. 2d 315 District Court of Appeal of Florida May 22, 2002 No. 4D01-3492
The court also found that qualified immunity shielded the officer from. liability under section 1983 because he did not violate a clearly established law concerning proper.net measurements when stopping and detaining appellant.
Supreme Court has explained qualified immunity as a defense to section 1983 claims as follows: [G]overnment officials performing discretionary functions generally are granted a qualified immunity and are “shielded from liability fdr
assessed in fight of tbe legal rules that were ‘clearly .established’ at the time it was taken.”
-
934 P.2d 1009 Montana Supreme Court March 10, 1997 No. 96-344
Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages “ ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person
— was clearly established at the time of the conduct giving rise to the litigation.
As discussed above, our threshold inquiry in addressing qualified immunity is whether the due process right arising from Orozco’s liberty interest in good time credits was clearly established at the time of the individual defendants
-
237 S.W.3d 1 Supreme Court of Arkansas June 1, 2006 No. 05-1208
In addition, Appellants argued that they were entitled to qualified immunity.
their actions violated any clearly established laws.
In its order denying summary judgment, the trial court determined that Appellants were not entitled to qualified immunity, stating: Regarding the qualified immunity claim, the record, when viewed in a light most favorable to the
-
809 S.E.2d 699 West Virginia Supreme Court January 31, 2018 No. 17-0025
of a clearly established statutory or constitutional law.
Consequently, at issue is the determination that DHHR was nonetheless stripped of qualified immunity because Mr. Gillispie demonstrated that a clearly established statutory or constitutional law had been violated.
Gillispie has failed to demonstrate a violation of a clearly established statutory or constitutional law sufficient to strip DHHR of its qualified immunity. 23 IV.
-
165 A.3d 735 Supreme Court of New Jersey July 24, 2017 No. A-71-15
established” right when he entered Brown’s home to secure it, and qualified immunity applies. 1.
Detective Steet is entitled to qualified immunity as to Brown’s NJCRA claim because regardless of whether his conduct amounts to a violation of a constitutional right, that right was not clearly established at the time that he acted
established at the time of his conduct, we conclude that Detective Steet is entitled to qualified immunity.
Showing the top 500 cases. Narrow your search or add filters to see more.