Case law

La Villa Independent School District and Sonia M. Lopez v. Marlene Hinojosa

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Oct 23, 2025

Only the sovereign’s own consent could qualify the absolute character of that immunity.”). … Thus, unless sovereign immunity is clearly and unambiguously waived by the legislature, a Texas court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over any lawsuit against a governmental unit such as LVISD. See El Paso Educ.

Woodley v. City of Jemison

770 So. 2d 1093 · Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · Jun 25, 1999

The trial court also found that the Woodleys did not present substantial evidence of ill will on the part of Northcutt that would defeat Northcutt's discretionary immunity or qualified immunity. … The Woodleys contend that the trial court erred in determining that Northcutt was entitled to qualified immunity.

Berrie v. Marvin

117 Mich. App. 134 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 10, 1982

Clearly, the response of the Murray majority fell somewhere in between. … In other words, assuming, arguendo, that the Supreme Court intended the new rule to apply to some cases pending at the trial level, the qualifying words "express challenge” clearly indicate the Court did not intend the new

City of Dallas v. Patrick

347 S.W.3d 452 · Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas) · Aug 15, 2011

Both the photographs and Patrick’s deposition testimony establish that no obstruction prevented her seeing the curb. … This statute and standards promulgated under it are clearly intended to prevent injury to and discrimination against disabled persons.

Cowell v. Gaston County

190 N.C. App. 743 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 3, 2008

immunity. … Under the doctrine of governmental immunity, a county is immune from suit for the negligence of its employees in the exercise of governmental functions absent waiver of immunity.

Judy Powell v. Roger E. Foxall

Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont) · Nov 29, 2001

Thus, qualified immunity will protect all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law. Id. … The evidence clearly established appellants' were performing a discretionary function within the scope of their authority.

Pickering v. Sacavage

164 Pa. Commw. 117 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 17, 1994

For a party to qualify for this absolute immunity from suit, he must establish that: (1) he is a “high public official;” *125 and (2) the allegedly defamatory statements were made while he was acting within the scope of his … Clearly, Sacavage’s office had been implicated in the news reports to have engaged in unlawful and reprehensible activities.

Winograd v. Clear Lake City Water Authority

811 S.W.2d 147 · Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · May 30, 1991

Court in order to strip them of their qualified immunity. 4 Harlow v. … In so holding, the Court reasoned as follows: If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.

Belluomini v. Zaryczny

2014 IL App (1st) 122664 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 1, 2014

ASA McCarthy does not qualify her allegations to IAD as absolutely privileged. … Her statements to IAD were clearly a part of the investigation.

Labranche v. Fatty's, LLC

2010 La.App. 1 Cir. 0475 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Oct 29, 2010

Furthermore, immunity statutes must be strictly construed against the party claiming the immunity. Weber , 93-0062 at 8, 635 So.2d at 193 . … Labranche clearly had no interest in judicially enforcing the right asserted against Super Stop. See La.Code Civ. P. art. 927 A(6).

TEXAS a & M UNIVERSITY v. Bishop

105 S.W.3d 646 · Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · May 15, 2003

A review of the record reveals no testimony establishing that the faculty advisors were paid for performing the non-academic role of faculty advisor to the Drama Club. … Obviously, at the time TAMU officials asked Chief Stege to produce a report they must have thought he was qualified to do so.

Harris County, Texas and Kevin Vailes v. Barbara Coats, Individually, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Jamail Amron, and as Heir to the Estate of Jamail Amron, And Ali Amron, Individually and as Heir to the Estate of Jamail Amron, Barbara Coats

Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · Feb 6, 2020

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Once a defendant raises qualified immunity, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that (1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the right was “clearly established” at the time of the violation

Hood v. Alabama State Personnel Bd.

516 So. 2d 680 · Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · Sep 16, 1987

In determining the existence of qualified immunity from suit, the United States Supreme Court established the following objective test. … An application of the objective standard shows that the personnel defendants have not violated any clearly established constitutional rights of the appellants; thus they were entitled to good faith immunity, and summary judgment

Hatch v. Grand Haven Charter Township

230 Mich. App. 705 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 7, 1998

However, the question remains whether the path qualifies as a sidewalk within the defective highway exception. According to defendant, the path was created as a bicycle path. … Accordingly, we conclude that the path qualifies as a sidewalk for purposes of the highway exception at the point where plaintiff fell. 3 Consequently, defendant is not entitled to immunity. Listanski, supra.

Penn v. McMonagle

60 Ohio App. 3d 149 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 12, 1990

In his sole assignment of error, appellant asserts that appellee, in her position as guardian ad litem, should not be afforded absolute immunity but only a qualified immunity (also known as good faith immunity). … Such a position clearly places him squarely within the judicial process to accomplish that goal.

Rew v. County of Niagara

115 A.D.3d 1316 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 28, 2014

With respect to the fourth cause of action, against the deputy sheriff, defendants contended that the deputy sheriffs actions were entitled to qualified immunity. … “To be entitled to qualified immunity, it must be established that it was objectively reasonable for the police officer involved to believe that his or her conduct was appropriate under the circumstances, or that officers

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.

The State v. Mercier.

349 Ga. App. 536 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Mar 15, 2019

In its order granting Mercier’s motion for immunity, the trial court observed that “there is no question [Mercier] was suffering from a drug overdose” and that immunity “clearly applies to one who is overdosing if he calls … At first glance, these facts may not establish the right to immunity under the plain language of OCGA § 16-13-5 (b).

Mitchell v. Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals

109 Wash. App. 88 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 13, 2001

A statute affords qualifying veterans a preference in public employment in recognition of service rendered to their country. … Mitchell argues that this statute establishes an absolute preference for veterans who have the physical capacity to do a job.

Risk Management Strategies, Inc. v. Texas Workforce Commission

464 S.W.3d 864 · Court of Appeals of Texas · May 22, 2015

The term “claim” is not defined in the Act, but the term “valid claim” is, and means “a claim filed by an unemployed individual who has received the wages necessary to qualify for benefits.” … .- ■ The other provisions within this chapter are also clearly concerned with the procedure for resolving disputes over claims for unemployment benefits.