Case law

Hoerman v. Western Heights Board of Education

913 P.2d 684 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Oct 17, 1995

Qualified immunity shields public officials from suit insofar as the official’s conduct did not violate any clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Thus, they did not violate clearly established law and are immune from suit in their individual capacities. McLin v.

Sutton v. State of Vermont

Vermont Superior Court · Apr 20, 2018

Both general grounds for dismissal stand on the law of sovereign immunity and official immunity, absolute and qualified, as well as specific grounds with respect to certain of the causes of action pled. … Both were clearly acting within their authority in doing so and are therefore immune from suit in this case.

Cuff v. Grossmont Union High School District

221 Cal. App. 4th 582 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 18, 2013

We conclude that Saunders's conduct does not qualify for immunity under the applicable statutes. We therefore reverse the judgment of the trial court in favor of defendants. … However, this provision clearly does not immunize a mandatory reporter's conduct that does not comply with the strict confidentiality provisions of the statute.

Austin v. Weld County

702 P.2d 293 · Colorado Court of Appeals · May 16, 1985

The sole issue before us is whether plaintiff’s claim was timely filed so as to qualify under an exception, as required by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (CGIA), § 24-10-101, et seq., C.R.S. … The court stated: “[s]ueh an anomaly was clearly not within the contemplation of the legislature in enacting the Immunity Act.” Antonopoulos, supra. The same principle applies and is controlling here.

Hypower, Inc. v. STATE, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

839 So. 2d 856 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Mar 10, 2003

Although there is a waiver of sovereign immunity in the instant case, it is not limited. Sovereign immunity is waived in the contracts context, not by statute, but by the fact of the contract itself. … However, the qualified acceptance letter from the FDOT to Hypower extended that limitations period to 853 days. See Hankey v.

Zieber v. Heffelfinger, 08ca0042 (3-17-2009)

2009 Ohio 1227 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 17, 2009

It is a qualified immunity, in the sense that it will attach so long as one of the exceptions does not *Page 13 apply. Lutz , supra. … City of Cleveland (1972), 30 Ohio St.2d 196 , 197 , 283 N.E.2d 175 . {¶ 56} We find Appellant has presented evidence tending to show a material issue of fact as to an exception to qualified immunity under R.C. 2744.03 (A)

Housing Authority of the City of Austin v. Julia Garza

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Jul 31, 2023

The Housing Authority filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting that Garza could not establish a waiver of its governmental immunity under the TTCA. … Because Garza did not continue to assert her special-defect claim in her trial-court response, we address only whether she established a waiver of immunity on her premises-defect claim.

Edmonson County v. French

394 S.W.3d 410 · Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Feb 8, 2013

But if she did make a viable claim against them in their individual capacities, they are nevertheless entitled to the protection of qualified official immunity. … It is well established that “Kentucky counties are cloaked with sovereign immunity.” Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government v. Smolcic, 142 S.W.3d 128, 132 (Ky.2004). In Franklin County v.

Alcorn v. Vaksman

877 S.W.2d 390 · Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · May 12, 1994

does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … are entitled to the protection of qualified immunity.

People v. Wesley

224 Cal. App. 3d 1130 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 24, 1990

Clearly, Judge Alston had already made up his mind to grant the motion, and all he really asked the prosecutor was if she had anything to point out that he had overlooked in his analysis. … The inclusion of “sellers” clearly contemplated the kind of “reverse sting” used here.

Johnson v. Decatur Park District

301 Ill. App. 3d 798 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 25, 1998

Matt had an intermediate skill level; he was qualified to do a front flip off the mini trampoline. However, he was not qualified to become a Power Tumbler. … Such decisions were clearly discretionary and were thus immunized under section 2 — 201 of the Act.

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.

Moradiellos v. Gerelco Traffic Controls, Inc.

176 So. 3d 329 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Sep 2, 2015

The governing statute’s language clearly limits the unrelated works exception to employees. … Bd. of Brevard Cnty., 888 So. 2d 1, 7 (Fla. 2004) (Lewis, J., concurring) (“Clearly, this unrelated works exception to the rule of general immunity applies only in the co-employees context.”).

Lacy v. Silva

84 N.M. 43 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · May 5, 1972

Under §§ 72-13-17 and 72-13-18, supra, sovereign power is clearly vested in the office of the Commissioner. … The question under this issue does not involve either immunity from suit or immunity from liability. Only the question of venue is involved.

Blake v. City of New York

148 A.D.3d 1101 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 29, 2017

entitled only to qualified immunity when acting in an investigatory capacity (Spinner v County of Nassau, 103 AD3d 875, 877 [2013]; see Johnson v Kings County Dist. … Further, the defendants’ argument that summary judgment *1108 should have been granted dismissing the plaintiffs’ remaining causes of action alleging violations of 42 USC § 1983 based upon the doctrine of qualified immunity

Betts v. Town of Mount Morris

78 A.D.3d 1597 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 12, 2010

With respect to its defense of qualified immunity, we conclude that the Town failed to meet its initial burden of demonstrating that its decisions regarding design, maintenance and signage were “the product of a deliberative … The Town also failed to establish as a matter of law that its alleged negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident (see Appelbaum, 222 AD2d at. 989-990; cf. Howard v Tylutki, 305 AD2d 907, 908 [2003]).

Gonzales v. City of El Paso

978 S.W.2d 619 · Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso) · May 7, 1998

Appellees alleged that they owed no legal duty to Appellants, the officers enjoyed official or qualified immunity, the city enjoyed governmental or sovereign immunity, and that the death of Appellant’s daughter was proximately … Three, Appellants contend the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because Appellees failed to prove their defense of qualified immunity.

Christie Deruiter v. Township of Byron

325 Mich. App. 275 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 17, 2018

The MMMA provides immunity from arrest, prosecution, and penalty in any manner, and prohibits the denial of any right or privilege to qualifying medical marijuana patients and registered primary caregivers. … MCL 333.26424(b)(2)’s immunity grants caregivers the right to possess 2.5 ounces of usable marijuana for each qualifying patient and cultivate and keep 12 marijuana plants for each qualifying patient in an enclosed, locked

Town of Morristown v. TP. OF HANOVER

168 N.J. Super. 292 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 16, 1979

The legislation as construed by the Supreme Court in Aviation Services and Shell Oil Co., supra, establishes an island of immunity from zoning regulations for property operated and used for the primary purpose of a municipal … The statutory immunity mandates the reverse process.

Bean v. University of Miami

252 So. 3d 810 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Aug 1, 2018

The trial court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, concluding that Bean’s complaint “establish[ed] that the moving Defendants are entities and/or individuals entitled to immunity from suit under Fla. Stat. … To qualify as an “agent of the teaching hospital,” section 768.28(10)(f) requires that the university enter into “an affiliation agreement or other contract” to provide patient services to the teaching hospital.