Case law

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.

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

Wuertz v. Wilson

922 S.W.2d 268 · Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Jun 12, 1996

In point of error one, Wuertz argues that the trial court erred in denying him qualified immunity by overruling his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and motion for new trial because the evidence conclusively … Thus, in this ease, we must consider only the evidence and inferences tending to support the finding that Wuertz was not entitled to the qualified immunity privilege and disregard all evidence and inferences to the contrary

Davis v. City of Palestine

973 S.W.2d 319 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Aug 27, 1997

’ claims; 5) Davis complains of an Act of God; 6) qualified immunity of City, officials preserve the City’s sovereign immunity; 7) the statute of limitations and statutory notice provisions bar Davis’ claims; and 8) any inverse … Because the City failed to establish its affirmative defense of sovereign immunity as a matter of law, we sustain points of error three and five.

Schuller v. Swan

911 S.W.2d 396 · Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Dec 21, 1995

Immunity.” … Chambers, 883 S.W.2d 650 (Tex.1994), claiming that the so called “new” good faith test of an actor, that relates to state immunity law is an objective one and that the court has clearly adopted the federal “objective good

State Ex Rel. Gelesh v. State Medical Board

172 Ohio App. 3d 365 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 29, 2007

On the other hand, the board contends that it, not the trial court, must determine the facts necessary to establish Dr. Gelesh’s entitlement to immunity. … Although it does not offer any specific argument regarding ambiguity in the term “professional disciplinary action,” the board clearly advocates that R.C. 2133.11 immunity does not extend to disciplinary adjudications by

Saenz v. Murphy

153 Wis. 2d 660 · Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · Dec 14, 1989

Qualified Immunity The defendants contend that, in any event, they are protected by a qualified immunity. … If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily fails, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his or her conduct. Id. at 818-19 .

Phillip K. Poteet, Individually and as Next Friend for Jeffrey Poteet, a Minor v. Collin J. Sullivan, Henry Lucio, Byron Lake and Town of Flower Mound, Texas

Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth) · Feb 1, 2007

For the defense of qualified immunity under federal law and section 1983 claims, however, such is not the case: A [A] defendant asserting immunity is not required to establish the defense beyond peradventure, as he would … Qualified Immunity Government officials performing discretionary functions are protected from civil liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity if their conduct violates no clearly established statutory or constitutional

Karsom v. State

155 Haw. 192 · Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · Oct 31, 2024

This argument was raised in opposition to Lumabao's MSJ in conjunction with the Parents' argument that Lumabao was not entitled to qualified immunity. … Lumabao was a maintenance worker, not a government official.4 The Circuit Court clearly erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Lumabao on the basis of qualified immunity, the sole ground raised in Lumabao's

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,

Relf v. City of Troy

2019 NY Slip Op 1287 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 21, 2019

Supreme Court properly concluded that Ashe has not established as a matter of law that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … "[O]fficers are entitled to qualified immunity under [42 USC] § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the [*3]unlawfulness of their conduct was 'clearly established at the time

Quidachay v. Kansas Dept. of Corrections

51 Kan. App. 2d 278 · Court of Appeals of Kansas · Mar 13, 2015

Moreover, the district court declined to grant Heimgartner and Bratton qualified immunity. … discrimination, which includes the right to have reasonable accommodation, is clearly established."

Easterling v. Brogan

2012 Ohio 1852 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 27, 2012

The trial court in that action sustained Croswell’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the handbook clearly established that Easterling was an at-will employee, that the disciplinary procedures in the handbook created … Division (A)(6) grants political-subdivision employees qualified immunity: In addition to any immunity or defense referred to in division (A)(7) of this section * * *, the employee is immune from liability

Nelsen v. City of Gridley

113 Cal. App. 3d 87 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 10, 1980

In addition, section 831.6 gives absolute immunity for unimproved and unoccupied portions of certain state lands and section 831.8 gives qualified governmental immunity for the artificial conditions of reservoirs and canals … For certain artificial or improved bodies of water, it qualified the immunity depending on the use (not necessarily recreational) and the age of the user.

State of New Jersey v. R.C.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 29, 2025

In these circumstances, the trial court was not clearly mistaken in finding that defendant might reoffend. Johnson, 118 N.J. at 15; Jabbour, 118 N.J. at 6. … Div. 2008) ("[W]e question whether a confession qualifies as 'cooperation' within the intent of [N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(b)(12)], at least in the absence of any indication the confession identified other perpetrators or assisted

Freier v. Independent School District No. 197

356 N.W.2d 724 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Oct 23, 1984

It is well established: One who is required by law to publish defamatory matter is absolutely privileged to publish it. Restatement (2d) of Torts Section 592A (1977); Johnson v. … Therefore, there is no justification for limiting board members’ exposure to a qualified immunity under Minnesota’s statutory scheme.

Joner v. Board of Education

91 Pa. Commw. 145 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 15, 1985

Regardless of whether' the Appellant has alleged facts which would have otherwise qualified her claim under an exception to governmental immunity, and we do not now decide whether she has done so, she has not alleged facts … Clearly Vann does not establish such a rule, but establishes only that, under the facts as pleaded in that case, the criminal acts were not a foreseeable use of school property as a matter of law. See Bersani v.

People v. Bylsma; People v. Overholt

315 Mich. App. 363 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 17, 2016

Most relevant to this appeal, the court concluded that defendant failed to establish that he was entitled to immunity under § 4, and because his entitlement to an affirmative defense under § 8 was dependent on whether he … In particular, § 4 “grants broad immunity from criminal prosecution and civil penalties” to registered “qualifying patient[s]” and “primary caregiver[s]” who can satisfy the elements of that section.

Canell v. State

185 Or. App. 174 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 27, 2002

high level of public authority; routine decisions that every employee must make, even when they require judgment, do not qualify for discretionary immunity). … Myers, 169 Or App 472, 478 , 10 P3d 265 (2000), rev den, 331 Or 692 (2001) (outlining what a plaintiff must demonstrate to establish negligence per se).

Com. v. Echols-Mccullough, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 23, 2025

at 26 (“possession of a handgun as alleged in the information clearly qualifies as keeping and bearing arms”). … Further, Appellant has not established that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to order a new trial because the evidence was so shockingly tenuous, vague, and/or uncertain.