Case law

Debo Puryear v. Carolyn Cockfield as Next Friend and Parent of Zutella Holmes, a Minor

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Apr 30, 1998

Puryear asserts she conclusively established she was entitled to qualified immunity. … Puryear asserts she conclusively established she was entitled to qualified immunity.

In Re Tierney

328 So. 2d 40 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 27, 1976

establish any condition or predicate to such subpoenaing and questioning. … The slight modification on June 30 of the area of refusal did not carry beyond the boundaries already established.

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

M.W. v. Department of Social & Health Services

110 Wash. App. 233 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 8, 2002

For the caseworkers to have qualified immunity against such a claim, they must “(1) carry out a statutory duty, (2) according to procedures dictated by statute or superiors, and (3) act reasonably.” Lesley, 83 Wn. … Even if Francis has qualified immunity, the State can still be liable for negligent investigation. Waller v. State, 64 Wn. App. 318, 334 , 824 P.2d 1225 (1992).

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

Pennsylvania State University v. Derry Township School District

711 A.2d 615 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 12, 1998

In doing so, PSU clearly qualifies as a Commonwealth instrumentality, defined by this court as follows: we must interpret the phrase ‘instrumentality of the Commonwealth’ according to its common and approved usage as required … Here, [PSU] utilizes the six parcels to operate its College of Medicine, clearly within the stated purpose of a university.

People v. Clark

230 Cal. App. 4th 490 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 9, 2014

’s status as a qualified patient or primary caregiver prior to his or her arrest.” … It is well established that immunity from arrest is exceptional, and, when granted, ordinarily is granted expressly. (See generally 4 Witkin & Epstein, Cal.

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

Maselli v. Regional School District No. 10

198 Conn. App. 643 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Jul 7, 2020

557n (a) (2) (B)) because the plaintiff failed to establish any of the three prongs of the identifiable person-imminent harm exception to governmental immunity. … immunity, (2) to the extent that the doctrine of governmental qualified immunity did not apply to Samudosky, the claims of negligent assault and battery, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and negligence fail as

Burton v. Kentucky State Police

341 S.W.3d 589 · Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Apr 1, 2011

individual Appellees were entitled to qualified immunity. … The trial court’s grant of summary judgment was premised upon three grounds: 1) the doctrine of election of remedies, 2) the Appellees’ entitlement to official immunity and qualified immunity, and 3) Burton’s failure to establish

Chapman v. Gonzales

824 S.W.2d 685 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jan 23, 1992

Appellant filed a motion for summary judgment based on her individual qualified immunity from liability and suit. The trial court denied the motion. Appellant then perfected this interlocutory appeal pursuant to Tex. … Such a result would be in direct contravention with the purpose of quasi-judicial immunity. Appellant is protected by qualified immunity as a matter of law and is not liable to Gonzales for any negligent acts.

Boettger v. Miklich

142 Pa. Commw. 136 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 23, 1992

This interpretation of a qualified or good faith immunity is clearly at odds with an interpretation which holds that a good faith defense is never available to acts arising from a misinterpretation of a statute. 12 This Court … therefore follows the law of qualified immunity now established by the United States Supreme Court, and in so doing gives deference to the relevant legislative history of the Act cited by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in

People v. West Valley Caregivers, Inc.

242 Cal. App. Supp. 4th 24 · Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California · Dec 7, 2015

Following the definitions and the provision making it “unlawful to own, establish, operate, use, or permit the establishment or operation of a[n] [MMB]” is a section titled “Limited Immunity,” which states, “Notwithstanding … “The voters thus found all ongoing MMB’s, whether or not they qualified for limited immunity, had the potential for deleterious impact and secondary effects on the community.”

Guidry v. Harp's Food Stores, Inc.

66 Ark. App. 93 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Mar 24, 1999

The qualified-immunity defense protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law. Id. The issue for immunity purposes is not probable cause in fact, but arguable probable cause. Id. … Appellant’s state law claims would not be subject to the same analysis used by the federal court in determining Jones’s entidement to qualified immunity.

Com. v. Nunez, O.

238 A.3d 420 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 14, 2020

Further, “[t]he burden of proof under the [Act] is not on the Commonwealth; rather, the defendant must establish that he is entitled to immunity under the Act.” Commonwealth v. … In sum, because Appellant did not qualify for immunity under the Act, the trial court properly denied Appellant’s motion to dismiss. We therefore affirm his judgment of sentence.

Torrey Thompson v. Joshua Bailey

Court of Appeals of Georgia · Nov 19, 2012

“The test for determining whether a defendant is protected from suit by the doctrine of qualified immunity is the objective reasonableness of the defendant’s conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law. … On a motion for summary judgment, if the applicable law was clearly established at the time the defendant acted [and it prohibited the action], the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent

Wilson v. Rose Metals Industries, Inc.

182 N.E.3d 542 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 23, 2021

The language in Daniels is clearly applicable to this case and establishes that Wilson was a Rose Metal employee for purposes of workers’ compensation. … In order to qualify for immunity under R.C. 4123.74, a customer of a staffing agency may pay the workers’ compensation premiums either directly or indirectly. Foran v.

State v. Cheatham

237 Ariz. 502 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Jul 23, 2015

Instead, where applicable, the AMMA provides immunity for possession or use of marijuana consistent with “the immunity provision” of the AMMA. See Reedr-Kaliher v. … Indeed, Cheatham conceded through counsel that he was not a registered qualifying patient under the AMMA. This record does not show that Cheatham attempted to claim, or could have claimed, any immunity under the AMMA.

Reading Housing Authority v. Board of Assessment Appeals of Berks County

103 A.3d 869 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 12, 2014

In this case, 12 of the units are reserved for low-income housing and the rental rate for these “public units,” all one-bedroom apartments, is established according to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development … While SEPTA is free to lease its real estate to tenants and is under the direction to raise revenue, clearly the leasing of real estate, solely to raise revenue, is not an activity connected to SEPTA’s purpose.

Ronald Everson v. Dekalb County School District

811 S.E.2d 9 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Jan 31, 2018

“We review de novo a trial court’s grant of a motion to dismiss on sovereign immunity grounds, bearing in mind that the party seeking to benefit from the waiver of sovereign immunity has the burden of proof to establish … Qualified Immunity of Lewis. Government officials sued in their individual capacity are offered limited protection from suits.