-
788 S.W.2d 470 Supreme Court of Arkansas April 23, 1990 No. 89-263
The appealability of a denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity from suit is clearly established. Robinson v. Beaumont, supra; Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985); and see Cohen v.
Laying jurisdiction aside, to be entitled to qualified immunity, the actions of an individual must not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have knowledge.”
They maintain in the alternative if a violation of a constitutional right occurred, it is not a “clearly established” right and, hence, appellants are entitled to qualified immunity under Mitchell, supra.
-
138 Wash. 2d 506 Washington Supreme Court July 22, 1999 No. 66352-1Cited by 37 Dissent · Sanders
But since Benjamin has alleged violation of his clearly established First Amendment right to speak, *533 this suit cannot be barred by qualified immunity.
No qualified immunity for violation of a clearly established right Harwick’s threshold defense is qualified immunity. 112 Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S. Ct. 2727 , 73 L.
Rather, qualified immunity directs the court to evaluate the facts as alleged in the plaintiffs complaint under the “clearly established” standard to determine whether the factual allegations, if proved, amount to a clearly established
-
725 S.W.2d 839 Supreme Court of Arkansas March 16, 1987 No. 86-198
The defense relied upon in the present case was primarily that of qualified immunity. The law of qualified immunity has recently been reshaped in Harlow and restated in Mitchell.
It is generally a question of law whether the conduct of the plaintiff violated clearly established law.
If the complaint fails to state a claim of violation of clearly established law the defense of qualified immunity is appropriate and the suit should not be allowed to proceed.
-
712 A.2d 382 Supreme Court of Vermont March 13, 1998 No. 97-054
Thus, if the official’s conduct does not violate clearly-established rights of which a reasonable person would have known, the official is protected by qualified immunity from tort liability.
We held that the qualified immunity analysis must, therefore, assume that defendant acted in retaliation for plaintiff’s speech and that plaintiff’s right not to be fired for that purpose, was clearly established.
If the rights at issue can be stated as broadly as plaintiff urges, they will always be clearly established and qualified immunity will rarely apply. See Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 639-40 (1987).
-
819 P.2d 393 Court of Appeals of Washington November 18, 1991 No. 25853-2-I
To overcome a qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must do more than identify a clearly established legal test and then allege that the defendant has violated it.
qualified immunity.
Because Officer Haynes was entitled to qualified immunity in light of the "clearly established" standard, we need not address this portion of the trial court's ruling.
-
431 N.W.2d 810 Michigan Supreme Court October 24, 1988 Nos. 80577, 80578, 80804, (Calendar No. 1)
If the undisputed facts show that the defendant's conduct violated no clearly established constitutional standards, qualified immunity applies as a matter of law.
A determination by the court that the alleged conduct of a police officer was a violation of a clearly established right would defeat a defendant's motion for summary disposition on qualified immunity grounds.
If the law at that time was not clearly established then an official is entitled to qualified immunity. If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail.
-
555 N.W.2d 630 Wisconsin Supreme Court November 25, 1996 Nos. 94-1081, 94-2908
Qualified immunity does not protect public officials who have allegedly violated someone's clearly established constitutional right. Anderson v.
at 640 (citations omitted). 1 In Burkes, this court considered what constitutes a clearly established constitutional right for purposes of qualified immunity.
established law' in the qualified immunity determination.
-
895 P.2d 212 New Mexico Supreme Court April 24, 1995 No. 21752
Believing Officer Sanchez violated clearly established law, we held that he was not entitled to qualified immunity.
Therefore Officer Sanchez is entitled to qualified immunity because there is no proof that he violated clearly established law, and he should not be made to stand trial on the § 1983 claims.
Further, because the facts do not show that Officer Sanchez violated clearly established law, he is entitled to qualified immunity as to the claims of breaking and entering, unlawful search, and violation of property rights.
-
298 Neb. 26, 902 N.W.2d 204 Nebraska Supreme Court October 13, 2017 No. S-16-676
In a qualified immunity analysis, the dispositive question is whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established.
not violate clearly established law.18 First, we address whether Roark is entitled to qualified immunity on Waldron’s knock-and-announce claim.
In finding that the rights here were not clearly established and that Roark is entitled to qualified immunity, we follow the law set forth in recent U.S. Supreme Court cases.
-
722 So. 2d 232 District Court of Appeal of Florida November 25, 1998 No. 97-02897
Qualified immunity shields a government actor from personal liability when his conduct does not violate clearly established rights. See Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 638 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987).
the most favorable version of facts alleged, the defendant's action violated clearly established law.
Clark has not asserted in her complaint any action on the part of Becker that violated clearly established law.
-
536 A.2d 229 Supreme Court of New Jersey January 25, 1988
Thus, the qualified-immunity defense would be lost if the official knew or reasonably should have known that his or her action would violate plaintiffs clearly established constitutional rights or if he or she maliciously intended
at 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d at 410 , would not suffice, and a government official would be entitled to qualified immunity unless his or her conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable
For Kirk to defeat Cardillo’s assertion of the defense of qualified immunity, Kirk must show that the law was clearly established at the time of the incident.
-
517 N.W.2d 911 Supreme Court of Minnesota June 30, 1994 No. C7-92-1622
at 396 , 109 S.Ct. at 1872 . 5 Many courts have found the law prohibiting excessive force to be clearly established *915 for qualified immunity purposes. See, e.g., Street v.
In Anderson , however, the Court extended the reach of qualified immunity by holding that even if the law was clearly established at the time the officer acted, the officer should be permitted to argue on summary judgment that
by the defendant, the defendant's actions violated clearly established law and are therefore not within the scope of the qualified immunity.
-
980 P.2d 742 Washington Supreme Court July 22, 1999 No. 66352-1
But since Benjamin has alleged violation of his clearly established First Amendment right to speak, this suit cannot be barred by qualified immunity.
No qualified immunity for violation of a clearly established right. Harwick's threshold defense is qualified immunity. [1] Harlow v.
Rather, qualified immunity directs the court to evaluate the facts as alleged in the plaintiff's complaint under the "clearly established" standard to determine whether the factual allegations, if proved, amount to a clearly established
-
10 P.3d 115 New Mexico Supreme Court August 14, 2000 No. 24,988
immunity for the strip-to-undergarments search of Randy Ford because while that search violated his rights, those rights were not “clearly established” in 1992; (2) two Defendants deserved qualified immunity because their participation
{2} We hold: (1) the strip-to-undergarments search of Randy Ford violated his clearly established rights in 1992, and the school officials therefore are not entitled to qualified immunity for that search; (2) where the jury determined
{22} Qualified immunity requires an inquiry into the extent to which the right allegedly violated is clearly established in light of pre-existing law.
-
1998 MT 191, 966 P.2d 1121 Montana Supreme Court August 4, 1998 No. 95-446Cited by 24 Concurrence · Leaphart
As the Court recognizes, in analyzing whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, a court must identify the right violated, determine whether the right was clearly established at the time of the violation and, if the right
The Court then goes *249 on to apply qualified immunity based on its conclusion that, given the state of case law as of the time of the defendants’ entry into Dorwart’s home, it was not clearly established that an entry into Dorwart
¶ 137 I, too, would find qualified immunity but for somewhat different reasons.
-
2005 SD 15, 692 N.W.2d 525 South Dakota Supreme Court January 26, 2005 No. ne
“Qualified immunity shields government officials from suit unless their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known.” Littrell v.
Therefore, we reach the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry, which deals directly with the defense of qualified immunity and “requires courts ‘to ask whether the [constitutional] right was clearly established.’ ” Id.
Thus, if the constitutional prohibition to the force used by the officer was not clearly established, qualified immunity applies to the officer’s actions. [¶ 16.]
-
2001 WI 10, 622 N.W.2d 265 Wisconsin Supreme Court February 16, 2001 No. 98-0012
Cooper and Stoudt were not entitled to qualified immunity because Powell's due process claims were grounded on clearly established property and liberty interests. Id. at 19. ¶ 12.
Pros-ser would affirm the court of appeals' conclusion that such a property right existed at the time in question, was clearly established, and accordingly the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity.
When qualified immunity is raised as an affirmative defense, the plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating by closely analogous case law that the defendant violated a clearly established constitutional right.
-
2005 VT 85, 882 A.2d 1164 Supreme Court of Vermont July 22, 2005 No. 03-489
The officers moved to dismiss the complaint on the basis of qualified immunity, asserting that they had not violated any clearly established federal law or state rights.
Thus, if the official’s conduct does not violate clearly-established rights of which a reasonable person would have known, the official is protected by qualified immunity from tort liability. Cook v.
Similarly, “if the official’s conduct does not violate clearly-established rights of which a reasonable person would have known, the official is protected by qualified immunity from tort liability.”
-
930 P.2d 67 Montana Supreme Court December 30, 1996 No. 96-011
The Court granted Youngblood qualified immunity on the basis that he did not violate any of Boreen’s clearly established rights of which a reasonable person should have known.
Youngblood is raising the qualified immunity defense on the basis that Boreen’s protected property interest in her employment was not a clearly established right at the time she was constructively discharged.
Because we hold that Boreen’s property interest in her employment was not clearly established in April of 1990, we need not reach the second prong of the Harlow test for granting qualified immunity.
-
2000 SD 53, 609 N.W.2d 138 South Dakota Supreme Court April 19, 2000 No. neCited by 13 Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part · Amundson
We have previously held that “[t]o find whether qualified immunity applies, the test is to ask if the officer’s conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights a reasonable officer would have known at the time
Further, “if the right is clearly established, qualified immunity will only be denied if a reasonable officer should have known that the challenged conduct violated that established right.” Id. (citing Rodriguez v.
Further, was this constitutional right clearly established so as to attack Miller’s defense of qualified immunity. [¶ 61.]
Showing the top 500 cases. Narrow your search or add filters to see more.