Case law

dobson/anderson v. Hon. mcclennen/mesa Prosecutor

Arizona Supreme Court · Nov 20, 2015

¶8 The AMMA broadly immunizes registered qualifying patients for their medical use of marijuana, providing: A registered qualifying patient . . . is not subject to arrest, prosecution or penalty … MCCLENNEN (MESA PROSECUTOR) Opinion of the Court AMMA gives qualifying patients a limited defense rather than a general immunity in (A)(3) prosecutions.

Adams v. City of Tenakee Springs

963 P.2d 1047 · Alaska Supreme Court · Aug 21, 1998

Ulmer, 745 P.2d 66, 73 (Alaska 1987) (holding that where officials exercised discretion within the scope of their authority, they were entitled to qualified immunity so long as they did not violate “clearly established” law … We must determine whether clearly established law required Tenakee Springs to hire firefighters.

Westbrook v. City of Jackson

665 So. 2d 833 · Mississippi Supreme Court · Sep 14, 1995

; WHETHER THE CITY'S OFFICIALS ARE PROTECTED BY QUALIFIED IMMUNITY; AND WHETHER SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY VIOLATES STATE OR FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES. … The Morgan Court was clearly able to determine the purpose of the organization and its operation from the record established. Id. at 280-81 .

Ouachita Wilderness Institute v. Mergen

329 Ark. 405 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 14, 1997

The evidence clearly establishes, as a matter of law, there was an intervening cause which caused the damages to Plaintiffs vehicle. … Section 16-6-104(c) provides that while a qualified volunteer is entitled to immunity, “[n]othing in this chapter shall be construed to Emit the liability of any volunteer agency.”

Ramirez v. State Children, Youth & Families Department, Dorian Dodson

9 N.M. 696 · New Mexico Supreme Court · Apr 14, 2016

Thus, as in Cockrell, this Court will examine both statutory text and 13 purpose to determine whether the Legislature clearly intended to waive the State’s 14 sovereign immunity to a federal cause of action in its own courts … VI, § 13. 3 {37} In the light of the text and purpose of Section 20-4-7.1(B), the Legislature 4 clearly conferred USERRA’s antidiscrimination rights on qualifying members of the 5 New Mexico National Guard and extended

Kyle v. Georgia Lottery Corp.

290 Ga. 87 · Supreme Court of Georgia · Nov 21, 2011

Applying the Miller analysis, a review of the law creating and defining community service boards clearly establishes that such boards are departments or agencies of the State charged with the public purpose of providing mental … Therefore, the purpose, function, and management of GLC are indelibly intertwined with the State in a manner that qualifies it for the protection of sovereign immunity as a State instrumentality. Miller, supra.

Lyon v. Jones

291 Conn. 384 · Supreme Court of Connecticut · May 5, 2009

“The most typical method used by plaintiffs to establish the fourth prong of a prima facie case is to introduce evidence that the defendant . . . promoted comparably qualified individuals not in a protected class of individuals … Clearly, a complaint must be properly filed before a release can be obtained.

Hafner v. Delano

520 N.W.2d 587 · South Dakota Supreme Court · Aug 10, 1994

Qualified immunity is one such personal defense. … A prisoner’s right to medical care has been clearly established for almost two decades.

City of Dallas v. Albert

54 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1609 · Texas Supreme Court · Aug 26, 2011

Second, there is no need to alter established principles in this area of the law when applying established principles addresses the issue. … We did not address the question of whether the city could waive its own immunity from suit because even if it could, the language in question did not clearly and unambiguously do so. Id.

Meier Ex Rel. Meier v. Champ's Sport Bar & Grill, Inc.

241 Wis. 2d 605 · Wisconsin Supreme Court · Mar 13, 2001

that leads to the underage drinker's intoxication, they cannot qualify as a "third party" under this definition. … a party that provides intoxicants to an underage person, and that strict construction of the statute requires liability where immunity is not clearly and unambiguously established.

Vandenberg v. Aramark Educational Services, Inc., 1100557 (Ala. 9-30-2011)

81 So. 3d 326 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Sep 30, 2011

Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 232 , 111 S.Ct. 1789 , 114 L.Ed.2d 277 (1991) (“One of the purposes of immunity, absolute or qualified, is to spare a defendant not only unwarranted liability, but unwarranted demands cus *339 tomarily … The defendants have established that the food-service vendors were acting according to a clearly articulated state policy and that their actions were actively supervised by the universities; accordingly, they are protected

Ex Parte Cranman

792 So. 2d 392 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Nov 22, 2000

It has long been recognized, however, that not every person or agency infused with some aspect of governance qualifies for § 14 immunity. … Under this distinction, physicians still enjoy immunity for the exercise of "governmental discretion," that is, decisions establishing governmental policy.

Hill v. Kentucky Lottery Corp.

327 S.W.3d 412 · Kentucky Supreme Court · Dec 16, 2010

The Hills argue that absolute privilege does not apply here, and that setting aside the first trial verdict was error because KLC had not properly raised and preserved the defense of qualified immunity. … Berns, 801 S.W.2d 327 (Ky.1990), that municipal corporations do not enjoy sovereign immunity and reasoned that the General Assembly’s designation of KLC as a municipal corporation clearly indicates that the legislature did

FLORETTA FRANKLIN, as mother and next of kin to LATOYA PERRY v. OU MEDICINE

2025 OK 84 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 18, 2025

Since Congress established exclusive jurisdiction for these claims, Oklahoma district courts lack subject matter jurisdiction. See Mills v. … if they qualify as "covered persons" under the PREP Act.

DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Law

284 Conn. 701 · Supreme Court of Connecticut · Dec 18, 2007

sovereign immunity, the [plaintiff was] required to clearly demonstrate an incursion upon constitutionally protected interests.” … First, the plaintiff cannot establish eligibility for the tax refund because it neither qualifies as a “taxpayer” as that term is contemplated in the Sales and Use Taxes Act; see Plasticrete Block & Supply Corp. v.

Sanchez v. Coxon

175 Ariz. 93 · Arizona Supreme Court · May 20, 1993

Accordingly, we do not face the case-specific, factual inquiry required in deciding whether executive immunity is absolute or qualified. … Absolute immunity avoids discouraging qualified and otherwise willing individuals from seeking city or town council membership.

Ruth v. Oklahoma City

143 Okla. 62 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 1, 1930

Does the ordinance contain but one subject, and is it clearly expressed in the title? … This section clearly provides that the city shall not only have the powers specifically granted in the charter, but that it shall have such other additional powers, rights, privileges, franchises, and immunities as are granted

Taggart v. State

118 Wash. 2d 195 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 9, 1992

Qualified Immunity for Parole Officers' Supervisory Decisions. … State, 116 Wn.2d 596 , 809 P.2d 143 (1991) suggests the parameters of this qualified immunity.

Hatch v. Grand Haven Township

461 Mich. 457 · Michigan Supreme Court · Mar 7, 2000

to governmental immunity. *459 We conclude that the bike path did not qualify as a “sidewalk.” … An action may not be maintained under the highway exception unless it is clearly within the scope and meaning of the statute. Scheurman v Dep’t of Transportation, 434 Mich 619, 626-627, 630 ; 456 NW2d 66 (1990).

Assurance Wireless USA, LP v. Dep't of Revenue

544 P.3d 471 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 7, 2024

But here, Assurance accrues a legal claim to $9.25 for each qualifying low-income consumer that it provides services to, and the payments are clearly for the services. 47 C.F.R. § 54.407 (reimbursement to carrier “based … findings concerning the establishment of USAC.”