Case law

Cabell County Commission and Beth Thompson v. Joseph Whitt

West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 19, 2019

Code § 29-12A-1 to -18 (2018), nor entitled to qualified immunity. … Second, Jarvis did not establish some sort of bright-line rule permitting review of any interlocutory issues contained in the same order granting or denying an immunity issue.

Pugh v. Pugh

25 S.D. 7 · South Dakota Supreme Court · Feb 9, 1910

or the United States, and is therefore clearly constitutional. … Sections 1 and 3 of the act are clearly within the powers reserved to the state, and are therefore constitutional.

Seibel v. Kemble

63 Haw. 516 · Hawaii Supreme Court · Jul 13, 1981

Appellants argue that there should be no immunity at all. They further contend that if immunity exists, it should only be a qualified immunity. The appellants assert that certain behavior should not be protected. … The fate of an official with qualified immunity depends upon the circumstances and motivations of his actions, as established by the evidence at trial. See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 238-239 (1974); Wood v.

Preiser v. Rosenzweig

538 Pa. 139 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 22, 1994

Common law accords an absolute privilege of immunity to statements, whether defamatory or not, to pleadings and other papers filed in regular judicial proceedings. … The defendant’s words were held to be subject to a qualified privilege. The proceeding was clearly private in nature.

Gersh v. Ambrose

291 Md. 188 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 9, 1981

This is the same reason the privilege granted is absolute, rather than qualified, i.e., defeasible by malice, for all protected participants in the judicial proceeding. See, e.g., Butz v. … The cumulative effect of the safeguards which attended the proceedings was such that the public interest sought to be advanced by providing the immunity clearly outweighed the harm of subjecting the individual to possible

Billy Shaffer v. City of South Charleston

West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 6, 2015

This Court has clearly articulated that a political subdivision is immune from liability if a loss or claim results from the execution or enforcement of the lawful orders of any court regardless of whether … [the West Virginia Governmental Tort Claims and Insurance Reform Act], is entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability for official acts if the involved conduct did not violate clearly established

Polly Carver-Kimm v. Kim Reynolds, Pat Garrett, and State of Iowa and Gerd Clabaugh, Sarah Reisetter, And Susan Dixon

Supreme Court of Iowa · Jun 23, 2023

Qualified Immunity. … clearly established law was “inherently backward-looking” and thus “would be an impermissible retrospective application.”

Jared Bretherick v. State of Florida

40 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 411 · Supreme Court of Florida · Jul 9, 2015

Even in cases involving § 1983 immunity, however, the individuals claiming immunity carry the initial burden of establishing that they were qualified for immunity at the time of the incident. See, e.g., Gentile v. … While we recognize that the Stand Your Ground law is intended to be an immunity from prosecution as opposed to just an affirmative defense, the immunity is not a blanket immunity, but rather, requires the establishment that

Sandt v. Delaware Solid Waste Authority

640 A.2d 1030 · Supreme Court of Delaware · May 17, 1994

VEASEY, Chief Justice: In this interlocutory appeal, we address two issues: (1) whether the Delaware Solid Waste Authority (“DSWA”) is an “agency” of the State of Delaware for purposes of qualifying for sovereign immunity … “In the construction of a statute, this Court has established as its standard the search for legislative intent.

Holly v. Auld

450 So. 2d 217 · Supreme Court of Florida · May 3, 1984

Thus, we have a clearly expressed legislative intent in subsection 768.40(2) that malice or fraud is redressable by civil action. … This would be contrary to the well-established rule that malice or fraud strips an otherwise privileged communication of its immunity and would raise serious constitutional questions which I address below.

Ex Parte Estate of Reynolds

946 So. 2d 450 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Jun 9, 2006

This defendant's function clearly required due care rather than difficult decision making. On the other hand, we accepted the claim of immunity in Gill v. … Therefore, Miles failed to establish that Johnny Reynolds and Cole are not entitled to immunity.

Ben Bolt-Palito Blanco Consolidated Independent School District v. Texas Political Subdivisions property/casualty Joint Self-Insurance Fund

Texas Supreme Court · Dec 29, 2006

“clearly and unambiguously” fall within it). … for such functions: “[t]he establishment and maintenance of a self-insurance program by a governmental unit is not a waiver of immunity . . . .”

Entila v. Cook

187 Wash. 2d 480 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 12, 2017

RCW 51.08.013 then establishes employer immunity and defines “acting in the course of employment.” … These statutory provisions demonstrate that benefit eligibility and employer immunity are analytically tied—if an injured worker qualifies for benefits, the employer cannot be sued. ¶7 Although RCW 51.08.013 establishes benefit

State Ex Rel. Golden v. Crawford

165 S.W.3d 147 · Supreme Court of Missouri · May 31, 2005

Section 190.307 provides the shielded entities with a qualified immunity allowing civil liability only in instances where gross negligence can be established. … At the time the trial court ruled on the summary judgment motion, it did not have the benefit of this Court’s opinion finding the qualified immunity under section 190.307 supplants the absolute immunity under the common law

Mitchell v. Davis

598 So. 2d 801 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Apr 17, 1992

Clearly, DHR and the BCDHR, as State agencies, can assert the defense of absolute immunity from suit. Therefore, all the claims by the foster children against BCDHR are barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. … We now move to the question of whether qualified or substantive immunity is available.

Wagner v. Board of County Commissioners of Rio Blanco County

933 P.2d 1311 · Supreme Court of Colorado · Mar 10, 1997

, reasoning that grand jury proceedings qualify as judicial proceedings. … Because we find that Sheriff .Hilkey is not a complaining witness, we need not determine whether complaining witnesses are entitled to absolute immunity or qualified immunity for their grand juxy testimony.

Scott Ex Rel. Administrator v. Hughes

281 Kan. 642 · Supreme Court of Kansas · Apr 28, 2006

Gallagher Woodsmall, Inc., 272 Kan. 710, 715 , 35 P.3d 782 (2001) (subrogation language of K.S.A. 44-504[b] clearly immunizes employers, fellow employees from civil suit if workers compensation paid to injured worker; dual … Much of the court’s opinion focused on the question of whether the engineer and the pilot qualified as statutory coemployees under K.S.A. 44-503.

Clark v. Deal (And Vice Versa)

298 Ga. 893 · Supreme Court of Georgia · Apr 26, 2016

Therefore, the Constitution clearly allows the Governor to appoint new judges when there is a vacancy on the Court of Appeals. … This argument, however, ignores other constitutional provisions which clearly show that there are exceptions to this rule.

Loran v. Iszler

373 N.W.2d 870 · North Dakota Supreme Court · Sep 4, 1985

Economou, 438 U.S. 478 , 98 S.Ct. 2894 , 57 L.Ed.2d 895 (1978) (federal executive officials entitled to only qualified immunity except in rare instances where absolute immunity is required for conduct of public business); … Burkett, 603 F.Supp. 1139 (D.N.D.1985) (qualified immunity defense available to government officials performing discretionary functions). The Restatement (Second) of Torts offers guidance: “§ 895D.

Ex Parte Alabama Dept. of Mental Health

837 So. 2d 808 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Jun 7, 2002

Percer argues that Sawyer, in her individual capacity, is not entitled to a dismissal under Rule 12, Ala.R.Civ.P., on grounds of qualified *Page 814 immunity or State-agent immunity as that doctrine has been established by … We agree that a motion to dismiss is typically not the appropriate vehicle by which to assert qualified immunity or State-agent immunity and that normally the determination as to the existence of such a defense should be