Case law

Zimmer-Rubert v. Board of Education

179 Md. App. 589 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 5, 2008

, clearly outweighs this factor. … . § 5-518(c) clearly and unambiguously abrogates sovereign immunity for any claim, up to $100,000, against a county board of education.

Larry Mark Polsky v. Spring Mart Entertainment, LLC D/B/A Dog House Pub & Grub

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Mar 7, 2024

Therefore, a party cannot prevail on a no evidence summary judgment motion by establishing the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. … He contends that defense of qualified immunity does not apply to the bar because Polsky is not an employee of the bar. A.

Nichols v. Pray, Walker, Jackman, Williamson & Marler

144 P.3d 907 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Jun 2, 2006

6 ¶ 21 Which brings us back to 40 O.S.2001 § 61, the qualified immunity statute. … Qualified immunity is extended to employers who give job performance information to a prospective employer, but only where the employee has requested or consented to furnishing the information.

Flanders v. Maricopa County

203 Ariz. 368 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Sep 26, 2002

Moreover, as an immunity from suit rather than a defense to liability, a qualified immunity claim should be resolved at the earliest possible stage of the litigation. Hunter v. … Waiver aside, qualified immunity does not protect an official who violates "clearly established” constitutional rights of which a reasonable official would have known. Hunter, 502 U.S. at 227 , 112 S.Ct. 534 .

Indiana State Board of Public Welfare v. Tioga Pines Living Center, Inc.

592 N.E.2d 1274 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 10, 1992

We do not perceive the scope of work product immunity to be as extensive as the State envisions. … Materials assembled in the ordinary course of business, or pursuant to public requirements unrelated to litigation, or for other nonlitigation purposes are not entitled to the qualified immunity provided by this section.

Estate of Clark Ex Rel. Mitchell v. Daviess County

105 S.W.3d 841 · Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Mar 14, 2003

However, the Supreme Court has since revisited Malone and refined its departure from established legal principles. … Qualified official immunity is an affirmative defense that must be specifically pled.

Miller v. Curry

625 S.W.2d 84 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Nov 25, 1981

The Supreme Court in Imbler, supra, reasoned that if a prosecutor had only a qualified immunity, the threat of § 1983 suits would undermine performance of his duties to at least the same extent that the threat of common-law … In applying this well established and clearly defined law of absolute immunity for prosecutors engaged in their official capacities, as stated in Robichaud, supra, and Sykes, supra, as well as Imbler, supra, and other cases

Miller v. Cent. Ohio Crime Stoppers, Inc., 07ap-669 (3-20-2008)

2008 Ohio 1280 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 20, 2008

Thus, to establish a qualified privilege defense, the defendant must show that (1) the publication was made in good faith, (2) an interest existed to be upheld, (3) the publication was limited in scope to that interest, ( … Rather, once immunity is established under R.C. 2744.02 (A)(1), the second tier of analysis examines whether any of five listed exceptions apply. Cater v. Cleveland (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 24 , 28 .

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.

Samuels v. Tschechtelin

135 Md. App. 483 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 13, 2000

assessed in light of the legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time it was taken. … action is a violation) violates a clearly established right.

Repko v. Chichester School District

904 A.2d 1036 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 10, 2006

Lienhard, the Supreme Court clearly established the test: Chattels used in connection with real estate are of three classes: First, those which are manifestly furniture, as distinguished from improvements, and not peculiarly … Contrary to the trial court’s interpretation of Grieff that the government entity was not immune because “the care of personalty caused a dangerous condition to occur on the real property,” the actual holding in Grieff clearly

Jobes v. Evangelista

369 N.J. Super. 384 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 28, 2004

immunity issue. … Simply put, good faith as a condition of the qualified immunity afforded by N.J.S.A. 59:3-3 and actual malice in the New York Times sense are mutually exclusive.

Manning v. City of Hazel Park

202 Mich. App. 685 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 6, 1993

Plaintiff has clearly established a prima facie case of age and sex discrimination under the intentional discrimination theory. Plaintiff was a fifty-six-year-old woman when she was discharged. … Governmental immunity is not a defense to a claim brought under the Civil Rights Act.

McKibben v. Schmotzer

700 A.2d 484 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 11, 1997

Her exercise of “significant policy-making functions as the most important public official in the Borough of [Dormont, Mayor Schmotzer] clearly qualifies as a ‘high public official’ under the criteria established in Montgomery … Lindner, 677 A.2d at 1199 (Mayor of Yeadon qualifies as a “high public official”).

Roberson v. McIntosh County School District

326 Ga. App. 874 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Mar 14, 2014

Under Georgia law, official or qualified immunity is an entitlement not to stand trial rather than a mere defense to liability. … The doctrine of official immunity, also known as qualified immunity, offers public officers and employees limited protection from suit in their personal capacity.

Baber v. Napa State Hospital

209 Cal. App. 3d 213 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 31, 1989

Section 855, subdivision (a) is a specific application of the general policy established in section 815.6. (Cal. Government Tort Liability Practice (Cont.Ed.Bar 1980) Liabilities and Immunities, § 4.34, p. 377.) … Whether the hospital exercised reasonable diligence to comply is a matter of defense for respondent to establish, and clearly cannot be resolved by the instant motion for nonsuit.

MacHete's Chop Shop, Inc. v. the Texas Film Commission Heather Page, as Director of the Texas Film Commission The Music, Film, Television, and Multimedia Office, Office of the Governor And Greg Abbott, as Governor of the State of Texas

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Dec 29, 2015

4 To overcome an official’s qualified immunity, a plaintiff must plead facts demonstrating “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of … Accordingly, Machete cannot establish that it had a clearly established right to these funds that Morales violated. See Ashcroft, 131 S. Ct. at 2080.

Hughesville Borough School District v. Wolf Township School District

40 Pa. Super. 311 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 14, 1909

That is, if a township without a high school were surrounded by two or more townships in which there were high schools, the children qualified for entrance to the high school which they propose to attend would be entitled … Seldom do we find a title to an act of assembly which more clearly indicates its scope and contents than the one under consideration.

James B. Hurwitz, M.D. v. Ahs Hospital Corp.

438 N.J. Super. 269 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 24, 2014

Like the federal law, the New Jersey statute provides broad immunity for damages to qualified persons for actions taken as part of a hospital's peer review process. … As Judge Grispin correctly found, defendants are clearly within the presumptive scope of the federal immunity under the HCQIA.

Carter v. Watson

181 Conn. App. 637 · Connecticut Appellate Court · May 1, 2018

The principle that the state cannot be sued without its consent, or sovereign immunity, is well established under our case law. . . . … Not only has the plaintiff failed to meet all three requirements to qualify under the capable of repetition, yet evading review exception to an other- wise moot claim, he has failed to establish any of the three requirements