Case law

Treweek v. City of Napa

101 Cal. Rptr. 2d 883 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 4, 2000

was established as a matter of law. { Giannuzzi, supra, 17 Cal.App.4th at pp. 466-467.) … was established as a matter of law.

Scott v. City of Columbus Department of Public Utilities

192 Ohio App. 3d 465 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 15, 2011

Thus, once immunity is established, it becomes necessary to determine whether any of the stated exceptions apply. Colbert at ¶ 8. … No. 07CA0009-M, 2008-Ohio-3214 , 2008 WL 2582990 . {¶ 9} The parties agree that absent an applicable exception under R.C. 2744.02(B), the city qualifies for the blanket grant of immunity provided by R.C. 2744.02(A)(1).

Matarazzo v. Millers Mutual Group, Inc.

927 A.2d 689 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 2, 2007

Our court reversed, holding that the allegations and inferences were sufficient to state a cause of action based on promissory estop-pel. 4 Plaintiffs here assert that the holding in Travers establishes that the immunity … Preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer should be sustained only where the pleadings are clearly insufficient to establish a right to relief; any doubt must be resolved in favor of overruling the demurrer.

Naranjo v. Southwest Independent School District

777 S.W.2d 190 · Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · Sep 6, 1989

Only when the legislature has clearly and explicitly waived the State’s sovereign immunity may a cause of action accrue. Duhart v. State, 610 S.W.2d 740, 742-43 (Tex.1980). … Section 21.912(b) grants qualified immunity to school employees for acts done within the scope of their employment involving judgment or discretion. Barr v. Bernhard, 562 S.W.2d 844, 848 (Tex.1978).

Martinez Sr. v. Taurus International Manufacturing

251 So. 3d 328 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 25, 2018

Taurus’s Summary Judgment Burden Under this statutory framework, in order for Taurus to receive immunity under the Act, Taurus must establish that (i) appellants’ lawsuit constitutes a “qualified civil liability … Of course, for the trial court to make an immunity determination at the summary judgment stage, Taurus must establish the absence of any genuine issue of material fact as to each of these elements. Copeland v. Fla.

State of Tennessee ex rel., Herbert S. Moncier v. Nancy S. Jones

Court of Appeals of Tennessee · Jun 6, 2013

immunity.7 Qualified immunity generally provides immunity from liability for state employees whose conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person should … was clearly established at the time of the violation.

Donohoe v. State

135 Wash. App. 824 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 29, 2006

Donohoe required and qualified for nursing home care. … As we noted at the outset of this opinion, our state constitution clearly authorizes the legislature, not the judiciary, to determine to what extent it will waive sovereign immunity.

Fields v. City of Newport

326 Or. App. 764 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 6, 2023

We will not repeat the details of that here, other than to highlight that recreational immunity was established by the legisla- ture as a “quid pro quo” policy. Id. at 294. … ORS 105.688(1)(c) extends immunity to unim- proved, nonrecreational access trails that, under Liberty, would not have qualified for recreational immunity.

Perry v. TEXAS a & I UNIVERSITY

737 S.W.2d 106 · Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Aug 28, 1987

This official immunity, although of *110 ten characterized as qualified immunity or “quasi-judicial immunity,” is given to public officials as a defense when they are acting within the course and scope of their office, performing … Torres has established his defense of official immunity as a matter of law. The judgment of the trial court as to Texas A & I University is AFFIRMED; the judgment as to Dr.

Samadder v. Ohio State Univ. Wexner Med. Ctr.

2024 Ohio 6104 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 31, 2024

Samadder argues that the Court of Claims erred in finding OSUWMC sustained its burden of proof to establish qualified civil immunity under Am.Sub.H.B. No. 606. Dr. Samadder argues that Am.Sub.H.B. … No. 606(B)(1) establishes qualified civil immunity, but Am.Sub.H.B.

People v. Singh

47 A.D.3d 733 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 15, 2008

In order for a declaration against penal interest to be admissible at trial, the proponent must establish that (1) the declarant was unavailable as a witness at trial; (2) the declarant was aware that the statement was adverse … Here, the Supreme Court properly precluded the out-of-court statements of four witnesses, finding that the statements did not qualify for admission as declarations against penal interest because the defendant failed to meet

Gary Brinkley, as City Manager of the City of Arkadelphia; And the City of Arkadelphia v. Brandon and Kortni Beene

2026 Ark. App. 165 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Mar 11, 2026

of qualified immunity. … It is a deliberate, knowing trespass that bars application of the doctrine of qualified immunity. Id. In Passmore v. Hinchey, 2010 Ark.

North Brevard County Hospital District D/B/A/ Parrish Medical Center v. Deligdish

District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 20, 2024

This places him beyond the established limits of the absolute immunity doctrine. … By not doing so, Hospital fails to carry its burden of showing that the trial court—by rejecting Hospital’s claim of absolute immunity as to Counsel—violated “a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage

Kass v. Great Coastal Exp., Inc.

291 N.J. Super. 10 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 31, 1996

A plaintiff, however, may overcome the qualified privilege by proving that the immunized defendant abused its privilege. *20 The Supreme Court addressed abuse of the qualified privilege in Coleman v. … The judge failed to direct any interrogatory to the jury referencing the other three bases to defeat the qualified immunity privilege.

Casas v. Gilliam

869 S.W.2d 671 · Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · Jan 26, 1994

Casas contends that qualified governmental immunity shields him from suit. … Under these principles, Casas carried the burden of proving his affirmative defense of qualified immunity.

Progress Michigan v. Attorney General

324 Mich. App. 659 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 19, 2018

] -4-  It is a clearly established principle that “when the Legislature specifically qualifies the ability to bring a claim against the state or its subdivisions … Even “ ‘post-Court of Claims Act’ legislation waiving suit immunity . . . is limited by the terms and conditions of jurisdiction established in the Court of Claims Act.”

Hayes v. Columbus

2014 Ohio 2076 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 15, 2014

Qualified immunity thus applies only to federal claims. See Bodager v. Campbell, 4th Dist. No. 12CA828, 2013-Ohio-4650, ¶ 30; Roe v. … Chapter 2744, which applies to state law claims, and the federal doctrine of qualified immunity, which applies solely to federal claims").

Tagliavia v. County of Los Angeles

112 Cal. App. 3d 759 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 28, 1980

preserve the system established for the administration of the law. … On that same ground it has been held that although a judge’s exercise of criminal contempt power is clearly judicial in nature and falls within the scope of judicial immunity, the eviction of a person from the courtroom by

Hall v. McGuigan

743 A.2d 1197 · Superior Court of Delaware · Sep 10, 1999

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields public officials performing discretionary functions from § 1983 liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … This Court must initially determine whether McGuigan violated “clearly established” rights. 28 Next, the Court must decide whether, in fight of the clearly established law in April 1996 and the information then available,

Human Rights v. Agency Education

Vermont Superior Court · Nov 20, 2024

The Court concluded in Winfield that the employees’ conduct was protected by qualified immunity. … ” component of the qualified immunity inquiry.