Case law

Franks v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction

195 Ohio App. 3d 114 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 28, 2011

against her does not qualify as a ‘medical claim’ under that section”); see also Evans v. … ODRC argues that it is entitled to judgment on the basis of discretionary immunity.

Teodoro v. City of Bristol

184 Conn. App. 363 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Aug 28, 2018

The defendants answered the plaintiff’s amended complaint by denying all allega- tions of negligence against them and interposing the special defense of qualified governmental immunity. … such duties in this case, as evidenced by Brianna’s and Bayne’s deposition testimony, fell within an exception to qualified govern- mental immunity because Brianna was subjected to a risk of imminent harm.

Janiszewski v. Belmont Career Ctr.

2017 Ohio 855 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 9, 2017

A qualified privilege has been applied to situations of intermediate importance, with immunity conditioned upon publication in a reasonable manner and for a proper purpose. Gray v. … . {¶85} The elements of qualified privilege are: “[A] defendant must establish that (1) he acted in good faith; (2) there was an interest to be upheld; (3) the statement was limited in its scope to the purpose of upholding

WILLIAMS v. PAULEY Et Al.

331 Ga. App. 129 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Feb 18, 2015

The doctrine of official immunity, also known as qualified immunity, offers public officers and employees limited protection from suit in their personal capacity. … 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

Fassy v. Crowley

884 So. 2d 359 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Sep 10, 2004

There must be a violation of a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice. Combs v. State, 436 So.2d 93, 95-96 (Fla.1983). … The answer in this case is not clearly established. Dr.

Air Turbine Technology, Inc. v. Quarles & Brady, LLC, Quarles & Brady, LLP and Richard Horn

165 So. 3d 816 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jun 3, 2015

The dissent wrote that [t]he Florida cases, as the majority grudgingly admits, are strict with regard to what qualifies. . . . … Under the second prong of judgmental immunity, Horn had to establish he gave advice in good faith and made a diligent inquiry into Air Turbine’s potential exposure to Atlas Copco’s attorney’s fees.

Sattler v. Northwest Tissue Center

110 Wash. App. 689 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 18, 2002

The standard of good faith is objective; it affords immunity to qualified individuals and entities who demonstrate that they acted with an honest belief, without malice and without a design to defraud or to seek an unconscionable … We conclude Northwest qualifies as an “other person” and is entitled by statute to assert the defense.

Essman v. Portsmouth

2010 Ohio 4837 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 29, 2010

However, some general rules have been established. … ‘“‘The court must look to the statute itself to determine legislative intent, and if such intent is clearly expressed therein, the statute may not be restricted, constricted, qualified, narrowed, enlarged

Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. City of Philadelphia

20 A.3d 558 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 13, 2011

Clearly then, as an agency and instrumentality of the Commonwealth, SEPTA qualifies as an "employer" for purposes of the Act, subject to the jurisdiction of the PHRC. … Since the Commission does not have jurisdiction over SEPTA, the petition is not clearly insufficient to establish SEPTA's right to injunctive relief.

Wyman v. Missouri Department of Mental Health

376 S.W.3d 16 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Apr 10, 2012

W.D.1989), this Court held that the inclusion of “the state” in the definition of an “employer” in § 287.030 was insufficient to establish a waiver of sovereign immunity, because— according to Krasney — “[t]he waiver of sovereign … “The liability of a public entity for torts is the exception to the general rule of immunity for tort and it is incumbent upon a plaintiff who seeks to state a claim for relief to specifically allege facts establishing that

Alice Jones McDaniel, Independent of the Estate of Jan Lynn Jones v. Crowley Independent School District; And Omni Financial Group, Inc., D/B/A U.S. Omni

Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth) · Mar 20, 2025

Hence, it was incumbent on Executor to affirmatively plead facts that established a waiver of governmental immunity. … Waiver of governmental immunity exists only if the legislature has clearly and unambiguously waived the immunity by statute. Rattray v.

People v. McIntire

232 Mich. App. 71 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 8, 1999

The issue we address here is simply whether testimony must be truthful in order to qualify for immunity from prosecution, i.e., whether a statutory requirement that one “answer” questions in a legal proceeding be construed … The prosecutor moved for a grant of immunity, for example, without even specifying that defendant was first required to testify in order to qualify for immunity under the statute.

City of McKinney v. Hank's Restaurant Group, L.P.

412 S.W.3d 102 · Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas) · Sep 18, 2013

Categories four through seven4 clearly are not claims under Chapter 245, so section 245.006 does not waive the City’s immunity as to those claims. … HRG’s pleadings are not sufficient to establish a waiver of immunity under Chapter 245, but it is entitled to an opportunity to amend its pleadings.

Reymond v. State ex rel. Department of Highways

217 So. 2d 488 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Dec 16, 1968

Thus the rule established permits recovery in these cases only where there is substantial proof of special damages shown. … Karl Snyder, another qualified real estate appraiser, testified as an expert on behalf of defendant, Department of Highways. Mr.

Brooks v. State

3 Md. App. 485 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 3, 1968

be qualified lo serve.” … any qualified to serve.

Duffy v. Wetzler

174 A.D.2d 253 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 15, 1992

We add only the observation that the defense of qualified immunity, which the court did not reach (see, Duffy v Wetzler, 148 Misc 2d 459, 469 , supra), provided a much simpler basis on which to reject the claims. … The claimed right under 4 USC § ill was not "clearly established” until Davis , and so the individual defendants are "shielded from liability for civil damages.”

City of San Antonio v. Dunn

796 S.W.2d 258 · Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · Aug 15, 1990

OFFICER ALONZO’S POINTS OF ERROR Alonzo first alleges the trial court erred in failing to give the jury his requested instruction and question regarding his defense of qualified immunity that he acted in good faith in making … The defense of qualified immunity arose as a result of plaintiffs’ contention that Alonzo had illegally restrained and arrested Dunn.

Glass v. Gates

311 Ga. App. 563 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Sep 1, 2011

A waiver of sovereign immunity “must be established by the party seeking to benefit from the waiver.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Fulton-DeKalb Hosp. Auth. v. Walker, 216 Ga. … App. 301, 303 ( 656 SE2d 584 ) (2008) (Caterpillar excavator qualified as “motor vehicle” under OCGA § 33-24-51).

City of Beverly Hills v. Guevara

886 S.W.2d 833 · Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco) · Nov 9, 1994

actions are alleged to be negligent, so long as their actions meet the three-prong test established for finding official immunity.... … The Court also said, “conversely,” if an employee is protected from liability by qualified immunity, the governmental unit’s sovereign immunity remains intact Id.

Demopolis v. Peoples National Bank

59 Wash. App. 105 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 4, 1990

An Arizona case is instructive: As an immunity which focuses on the status of the actor, the privilege immunizes an attorney for statements made "while performing his function as such." … The burden of establishing an abuse of a qualified privilege rests on the defamed party, who must show that the speaker acted with actual malice; i.e., that he or she knew the statement was false, or had a high degree of