Case law

Reed v. DeKalb County

264 Ga. App. 83 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Oct 22, 2003

The doctrine of official immunity, also known as qualified immunity, affords limited protection to public officers and employees sued ■ in their personal capacity. Gilbert v. … Official or 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.”

Hedrick v. Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc.

807 A.2d 584 · Superior Court of Delaware · Apr 8, 2002

It is this exception to the initial grant of immunity which makes § 908 a qualified immunity. But, even with that qualification, the breadth of the immunity which is granted is broad. … In so doing, the legislation clearly establishes the best interest of the child as the child welfare policy for the State of Delaware. S.B. 170, 139th General Assembly, at 16. . 16 Del.C. § 903. . Giuricich v.

Maynard v. H.A.M. Landscaping, Inc.

166 Ohio App. 3d 76 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 6, 2006

C. 4123.74 qualifies the immunity that the complying employer is entitled to: the immunity extends to injuries “received or contracted by any employee in the course of or arising out of his employment.” {¶ 42} In support … Bridges, however, qualified that the defendant was a “complying employer entitled to the immunity provided in R.C. ¿.123.74..” (Emphasis added.)

State v. Craciun

2018 Ohio 5185 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 21, 2018

Craciun, on the basis of qualified statutory immunity. … Here, the trial court, in applying the qualified immunity test, did not require satisfaction of all prongs.

Coleman v. Smith

405 S.W.3d 487 · Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Sep 21, 2012

We find Cantrell engaged in a discretionary act and, as a result, may qualify for official immunity. … The appellants then moved for summary judgment claiming, in part, they were entitled to qualified official immunity because the acts at issue were discretionary, thereby affording them immunity.

R.P. v. First Student, Inc.

515 P.3d 283 · Court of Appeals of Kansas · Jul 1, 2022

And when examining the facts in Lane, it found Orion did not establish it was an instrumentality. … for governmental immunity. 23 P.3d at 264.

Medberry v. McCallister

937 So. 2d 808 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Sep 18, 2006

First, Appellees argued that the Leon County Circuit Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over them based on the doctrines of sovereign immunity, qualified immunity, and/or the Eleventh Amendment. … In Paragraph 23, Medberry asserted that Appellees cannot claim qualified immunity because the pertinent state and constitutional law relating to Medberry's rights was clearly established at the time of the physical assault

Carman v. Wieland

406 S.W.3d 70 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jul 16, 2013

But in any event, police officers are clearly distinguishable from firefighters. Police officers are sworn law-enforcement officers, somewhat like the sheriffs to whom the statute expressly applies. … A defendant, of course, would never require immunity as a shield to liability if the plaintiff could not establish that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty. Duty is an essential element of a negligence action.

Binkewitz v. Allstate Ins. Co.

222 N.J. Super. 501 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 4, 1988

In balancing those significant interests, absolute immunity best fits some settings and qualified immunity is appropriate to others. See Dairy Stores, Inc. v. Sentinel Pub. Co., 104 N.J. 125, 136 (1986). … Just as in a defamation action, the qualified privilege is a defense which must be raised by defendant. The cause of action is not, however, established solely by defeating the defense of privilege.

Catberro v. Naperville School District No. 203

Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 2, 2000

To qualify for the immunity provided by this section, an employee must hold a position involving either the determination of policy or the exercise of discretion. … The district responds that the teacher's acts of choosing the rope and poles and having the students jump over the rope were clearly discretionary.

Ex parte Springsteen

506 S.W.3d 789 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Dec 21, 2016

It is well established that the common law—the starting or default legal rule—recognizes no right to recover against the government for wrongful or erroneous imprisonment, 3 and sovereign *791 immunity—the age-old common-law … will bar [even] an otherwise proper [U]DJA claim that has the effect of establishing a right to relief against the State for which the Legislature has not waived sovereign immunity" (citing City of Houston v.

Boyd v. Tietze

172 P.3d 639 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Aug 10, 2007

Therefore, the relevant inquiry is not whether an individual qualifies under the definition of "state" but rather whether the person qualifies as an employee acting within the scope of his or her employment under the Act … According to Anderson, 1994 OK 136, ¶12 , 890 P.2d at 1337 , this sentence clearly takes the employee/teaching-physi-clans ... out of the seope of their employment when they are practising[practicing] medicine-whether for

Harvey M. Hill v. State

143 So. 3d 981 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 16, 2014

State, concluding that the plain language of 776.032 can be understood as granting immunity to a person who qualifies under either 776.012(1) or 776.013(3) and that the “unlawful activity” exception does not exist under section … It is a well-established presumption that the legislature intends to change the law when it amends a statute. See Mikos v. Ringling Bros.

Bowling v. Brown

57 Md. App. 248 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 11, 1984

That the individual Town Council members do not have qualified immunity for discretionary acts performed without malice; and IV. … Qualified Immunity Defendants also cite James v.

Vela v. Gomez

4 S.W.3d 911 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Oct 21, 1999

Appellants’ sole issue contends the trial court erred in denying their motion for summary judgment based on the doctrine of official immunity. The standard of review in a summary judgment case is well-established: 1. … Official immunity is an affirmative defense requiring the defendant to establish all elements of the defense. City of Lancaster v. Chambers, 883 S.W.2d 650, 653 (Tex.1994).

Robinson v. Hooker

323 S.W.3d 418 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Aug 3, 2010

The immunity applies only to those who qualify as an “employer” under the Act. … Accordingly, Hooker failed to establish that she was entitled to official immunity. The circuit court erred in dismissing Robinson’s petition on the basis of official immunity.

Culberson v. Chapman

496 N.W.2d 821 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Feb 23, 1993

In enacting Minn.Stat. § 148.975 the legislature clearly intended to create a broad immunity from liability for practitioners who warn third parties of a patient’s threats. 2 In the Civil Law Subcommittee, Senator Ember Reichgott … Morris, 453 N.W.2d 31, 40 (Minn.1990) (qualified immunity provides “immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability”) (quoting Mitchell v.

Roebuck v. Mayo Clinic

105 Arizona Cases Digest 38 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Sep 19, 2023

Ashraf and Scott unequivocally established that the ABG test was performed to assess and treat Roebuck for COVID-19. Although Roebuck complains of a purported “incongruity” in Dr. … According to the March 17, 2020 Declaration Under the Act, to qualify as a “covered countermeasure” under the Act, a countermeasure must be a “qualified pandemic or epidemic product,” or a “security countermeasure

Janklow v. Minnesota Board of Examiners for Nursing Home Administrators

536 N.W.2d 20 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Aug 22, 1995

This appeal follows the district court’s denial of BEN-HA’s motion for summary judgment based on immunity from suit. ISSUES I. Did Janklow fail to establish a prima facie claim under the Whistleblower Act? II. … Precedent has not established whether official immunity applies to Whistleblower Act claims at all.

Murdock v. Village of Ottawa Hills

134 Ohio App. 3d 470 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 10, 1999

To establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination in hiring under Title VII, a complainant must show: “(i) that he belongs to a [protected class]; (ii) that he applied and was qualified for a job for which the … Being the son of a former union organizer is clearly not a protected class pursuant to R.C. 4112.02.