The following excerpt is from State Police Litigation, In re, 88 F.3d 111 (2nd Cir. 1996):
The district court similarly ruled that defendants had not shown entitlement to qualified immunity against the state-law claims, in part because in order to establish that defense, defendants would be required to show that their acts did not "involve malice, wantonness or intent to injure," and that they had no knowledge of the specific harm or injury alleged. Evon v. Andrews, 211 Conn. 501, 505, 559 A.2d 1131, 1134 (1989). The district court stated:
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.