Case law

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services v. Carlotta Howard

429 S.W.3d 782 · Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas) · Apr 15, 2014

Governmental entities are immune from suit unless the government has clearly and unambiguously waived its immunity. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. 311.034 (West 2013); Tex. … Disability Discrimination To establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination under chapter 21, a plaintiff must show (1) he has a “disability,” (2) he is “qualified” for the job, and (3) he suffered

Triple BB, LLC v. the Village of Briarcliff, Texas

566 S.W.3d 385 · Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Dec 21, 2018

Triple BB argues that the grant of an easement alone qualifies as a contract for service. … dism’d) (barring on sovereign immunity grounds UDJA action against State to establish easement in real property).

Fellows v. Superior Court

108 Cal. App. 3d 55 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 10, 1980

VI The Question of Whether Plaintiffs Failed to Make an Adequate Showing of the Preliminary Facts to Establish That the Documents Sought by Defendants Qualified as “Work Product” or Whether Such Documents Came Within the … It would appear, therefore, that each document in question might fall into one of three categories: (1) as being immune from discovery by reason of the absolute portion of the privilege, (2) as *68 being immune from discovery

Burk v. State

215 Ariz. 6 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Mar 6, 2007

Hennosy, 151 F.3d 493, 498-99 (6th Cir.1998) (holding prosecutors entitled to absolute immunity for initiating prosecution and presenting state’s case but only entitled to qualified immunity for administrative and investigative … In light of our conclusion, we do not address the parties’ additional arguments concerning qualified immunity.

Ramsey v. YAVAPAI FAMILY ADVOCACY CENTER

225 Ariz. 132 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Jul 13, 2010

This form of qualified immunity can only be overcome by a showing of “malice.” Id. We presume that a person acting pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-3620 acted in good faith and with proper motives. … Accordingly, the trial court did not err in granting Sheets, Ness, and Denton summary judgment based on the qualified immunity provided by A.R.S. § 13-3620.J. 12 IV.

Carr v. City of Lansing

259 Mich. App. 376 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 22, 2004

We conclude that the trial court clearly erred by finding the city had jurisdiction over the intersection and erred as a matter of law by denying defendant’s motion for summary disposition because governmental immunity barred … So, reading the plain language of the amendment, § 2a is an exception to subsection 2(1), the highway exception to the general rule of governmental immunity established in subsection 7(1).

Mocio v. State

98 So. 3d 601 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 25, 2012

In order to resolve this question, we must determine whether the court violated “‘a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice.’ ” Miami-Dade Cnty. v. … Accordingly, the circuit court violated a clearly established principle of law in determining that a writ of prohibition was not a proper remedy in this case.

Antkiewicz v. Motorists Mutual Insurance

91 Mich. App. 389 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 23, 1979

We then determine "whether the plaintiff[s’] claim, on the pleadings, is so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development can possibly justify a right to recovery”. … Justice Moody’s construction, employing the qualifier "effectively”, encompasses the "can only be done by the government” construction set forth by Justices Fitzgerald, Levin, and Kavanagh, and we, therefore, regard it as

Shedlock v. Department of Correction

15 Mass. L. Rptr. 357 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Oct 3, 2002

The Court added, “The word ‘substantial’ thus clearly precludes impairments that interfere in only a minor way with the performance of [a major life activity] from qualifying as disabilities.” Id. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, the correctional officers are “shielded from liability from civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or con *364 stitutional rights of

O'TOOLE v. Superior Court

44 Cal. Rptr. 3d 531 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 14, 2006

Section 820.6 is a qualified immunity; it applies when a public employee acts “in good faith, without malice, and under the apparent authority of an enactment that is unconstitutional, invalid or inapplicable . . . .” … Plaintiffs argue this belief was unreasonable because courts have “clearly established” that peaceful demonstrators cannot constitutionally be excluded from university grounds based on a disruptive audience reaction.

Osborn v. City of Waterbury

181 Conn. App. 239 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Apr 17, 2018

immunity for the performance of discretionary duties; (2) the city is entitled to governmental immunity pursuant to General Statutes § 52-557n (a) (2) (B); and (3) members of municipal boards who are not compensated for … such membership are entitled to immunity for any error or omission made in the exercise of such person’s policy or decision- making responsibilities pursuant to § 52-557n (c). 5 The court found no evidence to establish

Steffan v. Smyzer

540 S.W.3d 387 · Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Jan 12, 2018

to immunity under the Teacher Protection Act; and (4) Appellee failed to establish the prima facie elements of his negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. … Therein, the trial court found that the Board was entitled to governmental immunity and that Hargens and Hudson were both entitled to qualified immunity *390 for their discretionary acts.

Reaves v. State

303 N.J. Super. 115 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 8, 1997

Such an allegation also may implicate the enforcement priorities established by the agency’s supervisory staff, which would be covered by the qualified *121 immunity provided by N.J.S.A. 59:2-3(d) and N.J.S.A. 59:3-2(d). … Therefore, the Tort Claims Act’s clearly expressed policy judgment that such legislative and executive decisions should not generally provide a basis for the imposition of tort liability provides further support for our conclusion

Burgess v. Jaramillo

914 S.W.2d 246 · Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth) · Feb 15, 1996

We find that Burgess has failed to establish as a matter of law that his conduct was discretionary in nature. He, therefore, has failed to establish, as a matter of law, his affirmative defense of official immunity. … This concept is also called "qualified immunity” or “quasi-judicial immunity." See Travis v. City of Mesquite, 830 S.W.2d 94, 100 n. 2 (Tex. 1992) (Comyn, J., concurring).

Martha C. Ptaszynski, Etc. v. Atlantic Health Systems, Inc., D/B/A Mt. Kemble Rehabilitation at Morristown Memorial Hospital

440 N.J. Super. 24 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 20, 2015

Charitable Immunity Defendant argues that the judge erred by refusing to consider its pre-trial motion for immunity under the CIA. … To qualify for immunity under this statute, defendant must establish that it was organized "exclusively for religious, charitable or educational purposes." Ibid. (Emphasis added). B.

Walls v. Arizona Department of Public Safety

170 Ariz. 591 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Dec 19, 1991

That statute creates a qualified immunity for public employees and entities for certain actions. … Walls argues that qualified immunity should apply only when the officer has probable cause to arrest someone, but fails to make an arrest.

White v. The City of Chicago

Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 29, 2006

Hawes, whom the police first interviewed in October 1997, was clearly a known witness. … Litscher, 267 F.3d 648 (7th Cir. 2001), the court addressed qualified, not absolute, immunity. -19- 1-06-1537 Furthermore, in Forsyth v.

Bailey v. Board of County Com'rs

659 So. 2d 295 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 20, 1994

With regard to the claim of several defendants for qualified immunity, [4] the court granted some defendants qualified immunity while denying it to others. … civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. [5] The district court recited further that under Monell , unless

White v. Rapides Parish School Bd.

3 La.App. 3 Cir. 1172 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Mar 3, 2004

Clearly, the Rapides Parish School Board qualifies as a political subdivision of the State. … In brief, the School Board argues that the actions of the Board's employees at the South Alexandria Sixth Grade Center clearly fall within the purview of Berkovitz .

Van Ness v. Independent Const. Co.

392 So. 2d 1017 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jan 28, 1981

On the contrary, the general conditions clearly recite that the contractor "shall be solely responsible for all construction means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures and for coordinating all portions of the work … qualify as a "contractor" or "statutory employer".