Case law

Little v. State

111 So. 3d 214 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Apr 10, 2013

We conclude that the plain language of sections 776.012, 776.013, and 776.032 can be understood as granting immunity to a person who qualifies under either section 776.012(1) or 776.013(3). … Section 776.012(1) provides another means of obtaining immunity for individuals who would not qualify for immunity under section 776.013(3).

Bass v. Cook County Hospital

2015 IL App (1st) 142665 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 7, 2015

However, we disagree with Bass’s position that this fact establishes that the Act did not intend to provide civil immunity for Dr. … ILCS 50/3.150(c) (West 2012)) and 3.150(g) (210 ILCS 50/3.150(g) (West 2012)) establish the Act’s intention to limit immunity.

Donohoe v. State

142 P.3d 654 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 29, 2006

This legislative intent must be clearly expressed, not implied. Ravenscroft v. Wash. Water Power Co., 136 Wash.2d 911, 930 , 969 P.2d 75 (1998). … 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.

Campolieti v. City of Cleveland

184 Ohio App. 3d 419 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 1, 2009

. (¶ 4} Appellant had the highest seniority and was at least as equally qualified as the applicant selected. … The city’s discovery request was clearly overbroad in its scope; therefore, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company A/S/O JC Investment, Inc. Restaurant Development, LLC v. JPC Group, Inc.

157 A.3d 1 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 9, 2017

JPC Group asserted in its answer with new matter, inter alia, that State Farm’s claims were barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … On July 7, 2015, State Farm filed a motion in limine with the trial court to preclude JPC Group from presenting evidence on its asserted defense of qualified immunity.

Epps v. Gwinnett County

231 Ga. App. 664 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Mar 6, 1998

Governmental officials performing discretionary functions are granted qualified immunity shielding them from the imposition of personal liability pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … “For the law to be clearly established to the point that qualified immunity does not apply, the law must have earlier been developed in such a concrete and factually defined context to make it obvious to all reasonable government

City of East Chicago v. Litera

692 N.E.2d 898 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 12, 1998

Immunity During trial and in the closing argument, East Chicago argued that it is immune from liability under Ind.Code 34-4-12.2. … Therefore, they clearly are covered by the definition of “person” for this statute. Ind.Code 34-4-12.2-1.

Lefort v. Rahe

Superior Court of Delaware · Jun 17, 2016

Keough entitle them to qualified immunity with regard to the 4th Amendment Claim. … Qualified immunity shields arresting officers from a suit for damages if a reasonable officer could have believed the arrest to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the arresting officers

Texas Department of Public Safety v. Martin

882 S.W.2d 476 · Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont) · Oct 6, 1994

with regard to appellants’ claims of qualified immunity. … If genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether the appellants actually did commit acts that would violate a clearly established right, then summary judgment on qualified immunity is improper.

Galveston Independent School District v. Clear Lake Rehabilitation Hospital, LLC

Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · Sep 21, 2010

Referencing Braun , the court held “that the establishment of the self funded group medical insurance program by [the school district] is a governmental function and that governmental immunity applies.” Id. at 779–80. … (“We do not see how H & H Sand’s allegation of unilateral modification establishes a waiver of governmental immunity under [section 271.152’s] requirement that a contract be ‘properly executed on behalf of the local governmental

Harnage v. Torres

53 Conn. Supp. 313 · Connecticut Superior Court · Dec 24, 2013

“The principle that the state cannot be sued without its consent, or sovereign immunity, is well established under our case law.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Markley v. … claims for monetary damages against the defendants in their individual capacities would be barred by General Statutes § 4-165, that qualified immunity bars any monetary damages against the defendants for federal monetary

Guillory v. Hill

California Court of Appeal · Feb 10, 2015

Defense counsel suggested below that no “clearly established law . . . says that the term search has to exclude the interviews” (italics added), and counsel similarly invokes qualified immunity on appeal because “there was … And while “the right the official is alleged have violated must have been ‘clearly established’ . . . , [t]his is not to say that an official action is protected by qualified immunity unless the very action in question has

in the Interest and Protection of R.G.P.

Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · May 20, 2009

[T]he offering party [must] establish that the expert has ‘knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education’ [to qualify the expert in that particular case]).” Baptist Hosp. of Se. Tex. v. … Tangible Property Even if appellants established governmental use, they must also establish the use or misuse of “tangible” property.

Johnson v. City of Bellaire

352 S.W.3d 260 · Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · Oct 13, 2011

First, Johnson contends that “the pleadings clearly demonstrated that the City of Bellaire waived immunity pursuant to Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 101.021 .” … The agreement does not define who qualifies as a “paid employee.” The evidence establishes that Johnson was paid by Magnum, not by the City; Johnson merely picked up his Magnum paycheck from the City.

Mary Ann Wilkinson v. Board of Dental Examiners of Alabama.

102 So. 3d 362 · Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · Apr 1, 2011

Wilkinson responded to the Board’s motion to dismiss with a detailed brief, 1 arguing that the Board did not qualify for immunity under § 14 and that, therefore, her claim could not be heard by the Board of Adjustment. … Clearly the State.

Nunez v. Albo

452 Utah Adv. Rep. 5 · Court of Appeals of Utah · Jul 18, 2002

Nufiez clearly served the University's interests. {18 In sum, Dr. Albo's treatment of Ms. … "Utah courts have established a rule of strict compliance with the notice provisions of the Utah Governmental Immunity Act." Bischel v. Merritt, 907 P.2d 275, 279 (Utah Ct.App.1995).

Harmon v. State of Oregon

320 Or. App. 406 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 23, 2022

Finally, we note that, in its brief on appeal, in a footnote, the state argues that “even if OSH was not entitled to absolute immunity against plaintiff’s alle- gations, it was entitled to qualified immunity.” … But qualified immunity was not raised in the state’s motion for summary judgment and the state’s undeveloped qualified immunity argument on appeal likewise does not provide a basis to affirm. 412

Christy Leann Smith v. Leona M. Pratt, of The Estate of Stephen M. Pratt, M.D., and HCA Health Services of Tennessee, Inc. /d/b/a Centennial Medical Center - Concurring

Court of Appeals of Tennessee · Apr 22, 2009

I fully concur in the majority’s well reasoned analysis and conclusion whereby the Court holds that the qualified immunity defense set forth in Tenn. … If it was, then Centennial Medical Center is entitled to qualified immunity pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(d)(1); however, if it was not, then the hospital is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Santiago v. Ware

205 Wis. 2d 295 · Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · Sep 30, 1996

been clearly established prior to Santiago's hearing before Zangl. … Consequently, Danner was not entitled to qualified immunity.

Hupp v. Hill

576 N.E.2d 1320 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 26, 1991

To defeat a claim of qualified immunity under § 1983, there must be a showing that the defendant violated a clearly established right: "in the light of pre-existing law, the unlawfulness must be apparent." Anderson v. … Without an allegation of activity sufficient to withstand a summary judgment motion, there can be no violation of clearly established rights. 8 .