Case law

Hagman v. Meher Mount Corp.

215 Cal. App. 4th 82 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 3, 2013

Code, § 214) means that no such taxes were “levied and assessed” on the property during the years it qualified for the exemption. … The court reasoned that the assessment was levied to “clearly benefit specific real property” and not to raise “general revenue.”

Dawkins v. City of Villa Rica

246 Ga. App. 795 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Nov 14, 2000

Holding that the police officers are entitled to qualified immunity and that no viable claim exists against the city, we affirm. … immunity from personal liability to government officials performing discretionary functions as long as the officials’ conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

State of Arizona v. Liwski

238 Ariz. 184 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Aug 28, 2015

Subsection (B)(2) provides immunity for a “registered designated caregiver assisting a registered qualifying patient to whom he is connected through the department’s registration process with the registered qualifying patient … LIWSKI Opinion of the Court immunity, such facts must be resolved by the jury before the trial court determines if immunity has been established. Id.

Texas Department of Criminal Justice and Glenda Pierson v. Linda Thomas as Personal Representative for the Estate of Damon Hollimon, and Ashley Dominique Hollimon

Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Apr 19, 2007

However, the doctrine of qualified immunity shields an official performing discretionary functions from liability under section 1983, provided the official's conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional or … her entitlement to summary judgment on her affirmative defense of qualified immunity.

Ahearn v. Vose

9 Mass. L. Rptr. 518 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Feb 15, 1999

Qualified Immunity Public officials are entitled to immunity from suit under §1983 if, in performing a discretionary act, they infringe upon a right not “clearly established.” See Matthews v. … Clearly Established Right The defendants are also not entitled to qualified immunity because, if the repulsive conditions alleged are proven true, the defendants reasonably should have known that their failure to take corrective

SUSAN GALLAGHER v. SOUTH SHORE HOSPITAL, INC., & others.

101 Mass. App. Ct. 807 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Oct 6, 2022

was 'clearly established' at the time of [the] defendant's alleged misconduct.'" … We conclude that the law of entry into the home based on exigent circumstances was clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity and that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the alleged violation of the

in Re: Stacy K. Boone, P.A. and Cardiologists of Lubbock, P.A.

Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo) · Feb 14, 2006

and, therefore, the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. … Those governmental officials are entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id .

Bardin v. Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Co.

82 Cal. Rptr. 2d 726 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 1, 1999

We conclude that the statute must be read to provide a qualified immunity, but to allow a defendant to assert any other common law or statutory privilege available. … Why specifically establish an immunity for good faith fraud reporting yet retain existing immunity for bad faith reporting? HQ The answer is found in the nature of legislative compromise. . . .

Turner v. Special Agent Thomas

235 N.C. App. 520 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 5, 2014

"The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials from personal liability under § 1983 'insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … "The qualified immunity inquiry requires a determination of whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time it was allegedly violated." Id. at 474, 574 S.E.2d at 87.

Geick v. Zigler

978 S.W.2d 261 · Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · Aug 27, 1998

In a single point of error, appellants argue the trial court erred in denying their motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. … Good Faith For the appellants to have established good faith, they must have shown “reasonably prudent officer[s], under the same or similar circumstances, could have believed” their conduct was lawful in light of clearly

O'KANE v. Catuira

212 Cal. App. 2d 131 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 21, 1963

Since sections 1800 and 1801 are clearly invalid for the reasons above noted, it is unnecessary to subject them to further analysis. … Nineteenth —Granting to any corporation, association, or individual any special or exclusive right, privilege, or immunity. . . .

Alexander v. Riccinto

192 Mich. App. 65 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 19, 1991

The question whether qualified immunity is available as a matter of law as a defense against a claim of excessive force by a law enforcement officer in effectuating an arrest is one on which the federal circuits disagree. … Having previously held that the reasonableness of defendant Riccinto’s use of force must be determined by the factfinder on remand, we believe the *73 question of his entitlement to qualified immunity cannot be determined

Reginald Dale Peters v. Vincent Messina, Stuart Neil, Kelton Conner, Judy Watson, Robert Christian, J.L. East, Allen Hardin, Robert Crank, David Conway, David Tucker, Leslie Crane, Robert Young, Thelbert Millsap, Johnny Rose, Johnny Miller, Judy Elain Peters

Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth) · Aug 28, 2009

. § 1983 (footnote: 5) against any of the defendants, qualified immunity is immunity from suit available to government officials sued in their individual capacities under § 1983. Harlow v. … 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 rights of which

Reginald Dale Peters v. Vincent Messina, Stuart Neil, Kelton Conner, Judy Watson, Robert Christian, J.L. East, Allen Hardin, Robert Crank, David Conway, David Tucker, Leslie Crane, Robert Young, Thelbert Millsap, Johnny Rose, Johnny Miller, Judy Elain Peters

Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth) · Aug 28, 2009

To the that extent Peters = s petitions can be construed to allege violations of 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 [5] against any of the defendants, qualified immunity is immunity from suit available to government officials sued in their … 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 rights of which

Hidalgo v. Wilson Certified Exp., Inc.

676 So. 2d 114 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · May 14, 1996

of a qualified health care provider. … This document establishes that Acadian was a qualified health care provider. Having proved this ultimate fact, it was unnecessary for Acadian to prove it was an "ambulance service." B.

Manifold v. Ragaglia

94 Conn. App. 103 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Feb 28, 2006

As with sovereign immunity, § 4-165 provides state officers and employees with qualified immunity. Carrubba v. Moskowitz, 274 Conn. 533 , 541 n.7, 877 A.2d 773 (2005). … “Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Richard Kelly v. Anthony Sommer

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 5, 2025

[12] Here, the Kellys argue that neither type of immunity has been established at this stage. … Upon further factual development, Sommer may be able to establish as a matter of law that he is entitled to absolute immunity using a “function-based analysis,” and our case law instructs that qualified

Urchisin v. Hauser

221 So. 2d 752 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Apr 16, 1969

Sullivan, 1964, 376 U.S. 254 , 84 S.Ct. 710 , 11 L.Ed.2d 686 , 95 A.L.R.2d 1412 , the United States Supreme Court has established a new law of libel with constitutional dimensions. … Immunity under the qualified privilege doctrine requires the absence of actual malice. Where malice must be presumed, the claim of qualified privilege is unavailable.

State Ex Rel. Beaulieu v. City of Mounds View

498 N.W.2d 503 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Jun 9, 1993

Prior to the administrative hearing, the city filed a prehearing brief asserting that this action was barred by the doctrines of qualified and official immunity, and that the officer’s conduct in executing the investigatory … ANALYSIS The immunity defense in this appeal is limited to the common law doctrine of official immunity. The city did not appeal the AU’s ruling on the inapplicability of qualified immunity. See Elwood v.

Mills v. Galyn Manor Homeowner's Ass'n, Inc.

239 Md. App. 663 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 21, 2018

In this case, Galyn Manor qualifies as a “person” subject to liability under the MCPA. … Clearly, the Court of Appeals has treated “immunity” and “exemption” as synonyms, and we similarly do so here. 5 Galyn Manor and Andrews further maintain that the Homeowners have not presented any issue of