Case law

Alford v. Osei-Kwasi

203 Ga. App. 716 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Mar 18, 1992

They also asserted they were entitled to judgment on any constitutional claims because of qualified immunity and on the state tort claims because of official immunity. … immunity because he acted in good faith and the law clearly did not prohibit his actions.

Fox v. Maguire

224 S.W.3d 304 · Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso) · Jul 28, 2005

Appellees filed a plea to the jurisdiction in both cases based on sovereign immunity, official immunity, and qualified immunity. … Appellees, who were sued in their official and individual capacities, asserted sovereign immunity, official immunity, and qualified immunity. 3 The trial court granted the plea to the jurisdiction, but did not specify the

Hallmark v. City of Fredericksburg

94 S.W.3d 703 · Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · Nov 21, 2002

Durst, and Officer Castaneda in their individual capacities, we must decide whether the officers are entitled to qualified immunity. … In determining whether qualified immunity applies in the context of excessive force, we look to whether the plaintiff has suffered (1) an injury (2) which resulted directly and only from the use of force that was clearly

Furfaro v. City of Seattle

97 Wash. App. 537 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 27, 1999

Qualified immunity is a judicially created doctrine protecting government officials from civil liability for performing discretionary functions “insofar as their *552 conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Once a defendant properly raises the issue of qualified immunity, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the occurrence at issue. Anderson v.

Kerpelman v. Bricker

23 Md. App. 628 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 16, 1974

It is distinguished from a qualified privilege in that the former provides immunity irrespective of the purposes or motive of the defendant or the reasonableness of his conduct, while the *630 latter is conditioned upon the … Clearly the filing of the complaint in this case initiated a judicial proceeding by setting in motion the grievance procedure.

City of Claremont v. Kruse

177 Cal. App. 4th 1153 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 27, 2009

The MMP also “immunizes from prosecution a range of conduct ancillary to the provision of medical marijuana to qualified patients. [Citation.]” (People v. … It accords additional immunities to qualified patients, holders of valid identification cards, and primary caregivers who “collectively or cooperatively cultivate marijuana for medical purposes.” (§ 11362.775.)

Fremont Compensation Insurance v. Superior Court

44 Cal. App. 4th 867 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 23, 1996

Section 1877.5 affords insurers a qualified, immunity to report workers’ compensation fraud to a local prosecutor or the Department of Insurance. The qualified immunity does not extend to reports made in bad faith. … The interest groups and lobbyists who fought for only a qualified immunity in section 1877.5 had no reason to concede that insurers already had more than a qualified immunity to report workers’ compensation fraud.

Akron v. J.B.

2019 Ohio 2203 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 5, 2019

In doing so, we have noted that the terms of R.C. 2925.11(B)(2) are unambiguous: The plain language of R.C. 2925.11(B)(2)(b) clearly provides qualified individuals with immunity for a minor drug possession … The statute provides for qualified and conditional immunity; it places the burden on an eligible and “qualified individual” seeking a grant of immunity to demonstrate that he or she has sought and obtained the required

Rathey v. Priority EMS, Inc.

894 So. 2d 438 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jan 12, 2005

The Ratheys counter that the immunity statute does not grant EMTs a blanket immunity; rather, it grants them only a qualified immunity. … qualified immunity has been disputed; hence, the requirements must be addressed.

Kinnard v. United Regional Health Care System

194 S.W.3d 54 · Court of Appeals of Texas · May 11, 2006

Kinnard has alleged valid claims for defamation and tortious business interference against appellees, 7 the claims are barred by qualified immunity. … To support their qualified immunity defense, appellees submitted affidavits from members of United Regional’s Board of Directors, the peer review committee, and the appellate review committee.

Smith v. Our Lady of the Lake Hosp., Inc.

612 So. 2d 816 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Dec 23, 1992

From the plain wording of the statute, there are two prerequisites for the qualified immunity set forth in LSA-R.S. 13:3715.3 C to apply. First, the committee member must have acted without malice. … In the instant case, a determination of whether defendants are entitled to the qualified immunity requires the trial court to determine the subjective motive and knowledge of the committee members.

Davis v. Diley Ridge Med. Ctr.

2025 Ohio 1940 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 29, 2025

Neer, 2016-Ohio-8374, ¶ 10 (“entitlement to statutory immunity is a separate question from the plaintiff’s ability to establish the elements of his or her claim”). … ESI is the only entity in this appeal that might qualify as a “mental health organization.”

Tobin v. Goggins

17 Mass. App. Ct. 996 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Feb 6, 1984

Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 [1974], holding that in claims under § 1983 executive officer of State and various officers of State national guard have qualified immunity for good *997 faith conduct, and Wood v. … Strickland, 420 U.S. 308 [1975], holding that in § 1983 cause of action State school board officials had common law, qualified immunity for good faith, nonmalicious action), the plaintiff would have to overcome the qualified

Soler v. Cleveland Metro. School Dist.

2025 Ohio 2151 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 18, 2025

The court cannot conclude that the pleadings obviously or conclusively establish the affirmative defense of political subdivision immunity. … R.C. 2744.01(F) provides that a public school district qualifies as a political subdivision for purposes of R.C. Chapter 2744 immunity. Bush v. Cleveland Mun. School Dist., 2013-Ohio-5420, ¶ 9.

Wallace v. Smyth

327 Ill. App. 3d 411 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 18, 2001

The court also relied on the legislature’s grant of a limited form of parental immunity to teachers as support for the extension of a qualified form of parental immunity to foster parents. … It would be anomalous to grant a qualified immunity to educators and biological parents but to deny immunity entirely to foster parents, who, in their relationships with their foster children, share many important similarities

Taylor v. Campbell

320 Ga. App. 362 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Mar 14, 2013

The trial court denied the motion, giving rise to this appeal. 3 The doctrine of official immunity, also known as qualified immunity, offers public officers and employees limited protection from suit in their personal capacity … Qualified immunity protects individual public agents from personal liability for discretionary actions taken within the scope of their official authority, and done without wilfulness, malice, or corruption.

Crisp County School District v. Pheil

231 Ga. App. 139 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Feb 27, 1998

It is well established that, in the absence of some special circumstance, claims against a public school district and its officials in their official capacity are barred by sovereign immunity. Ga. Const, of 1983, Art. … The Pheils attempt to avoid the scope of Georgia’s sovereign immunity law by making a claim under the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 USC § 794 . 3 The Act provides in pertinent part: “No otherwise qualified individual

Qualified Patients Assn. v. City of Anaheim

187 Cal. App. 4th 734 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 18, 2010

immunity under [the CUA]. … Second, while it is true that legislation may not immunize a business from Unruh Civil Rights Act claims for discrimination that occurs in that establishment (see Gibson , at p. 1093, relying on Orloff v.

Osiris Enterprises v. Borough of Whitehall

877 A.2d 560 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 23, 2005

Accordingly, we first must consider whether Defendants, as members of Borough Council, qualify as “high public officials.” In Hall v. … Because the candid discussion and determination of the “non-responsibility” of bidding contractors is clearly part of the performance of a Borough Council member’s official duties, Defendants’ actions fall within the scope

Nodoushani v. Southern Connecticut State University

Connecticut Appellate Court · Aug 5, 2014

App. 44, 53, 19 A.3d 215 (2011). 7 ‘‘A [governmental] defendant will be entitled to qualified immunity if either (1) his actions did not violate clearly established law or (2) it was objectively reasonable for him … to believe that his actions did not violate clearly established law.’’