explaining that “[t]he distinction between discretionary acts and mandatory acts is essentially the difference between making higher-level decisions and giving orders to effectuate those decisions, and simply following orders”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that “[t]he distinction between discretionary acts and mandatory acts is essentially the difference between making higher-level decisions and giving orders to effectuate those decisions, and simply following orders”
- stating that discretionary acts are those which “call[] for a ‘good faith judgment call[] made in a legally uncertain environment.’” (quoting Yanero, 65 S.W.3d at 522 )
- stating that discretionary acts involve “the exercise of discretion and judgment, or personal deliberation, decision, and judgment”
- recognizing that “specific instructions could make such duties required and thus ministerial.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CUNNINGHAM, J.,
Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part.
I readily concur with most of the excellent analysis by Justice Noble. I dissent, however, that the teacher on bus duty, Eddie Hamilton, was performing a ministerial duty in regard to the placement of the bleachers in the gym. Whether the bleachers were pulled in or extended, or only half way extended on this particular day, would not have been under his direction. As the majority opinion states: “The teachers on duty supervised the children in the morning, but that clearly did not include the specific duty of extending the bleachers.” Therefore, the duties of Hamilton were purely discretionary. In my opinion, he would also have qualified immunity. To that portion of the opinion, I respectfully dissent.