Case law

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.

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.

West v. State of California

181 Cal. App. 3d 753 · California Court of Appeal · May 29, 1986

These defendants are protected by discretionary licensing immunity and are not liable for plaintiffs’ damages. … The contemporaneous construction of a statute by the agency responsible for its implementation and interpretation is entitled to great weight unless clearly erroneous. (Davenport v.

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.”).

Sisk v. General Builders Corp. of Fort Lauderdale

438 So. 2d 65 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Aug 31, 1983

If adequately established, this would cause General Builders to be classified as an “owner-builder” rather than a general contractor and, thus, it would be unable to qualify for tort immunity under the statutes in question … He claimed that if this were established at trial, General Builders would not be entitled to the tort immunity conferred on contractors by sections 440.10 and 440.11, Florida Statutes (1981).

State Dept. of State Hospitals v. Super. Ct.

California Court of Appeal · Nov 2, 2022

It is trumped by the specific immunity provision of section 854.8. … “The plain language of . . . section 855 clearly states that not all statutory or regulatory violations will provide a basis for liability, only those that prescribe minimum standards. . . .

Wood v. Emmerson

66 Cal. Rptr. 3d 847 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 12, 2007

On July 28, 2004, the trial court found defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity. … The court stated no issue remained to be tried concerning qualified immunity.

People of Michigan v. Dana Lynn Cook

323 Mich. App. 435 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 22, 2018

Section 4 provides qualifying patients who hold registry cards “broad immunity from criminal prosecution, civil penalties, and disciplinary actions[.]” Kolanek, 491 Mich at 394-395. … That is precisely what is accomplished by Section 4 of the MMMA, as it provides absolute immunity from prosecution to those individuals that can establish the required elements of the statute.

Heffelfinger v. Town of Morristown

209 N.J. Super. 380 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 24, 1985

The terms "society" and "association" are not clearly defined by New Jersey statutory or decisional law. … In this case, defendants clearly were fulfilling their obligations as trustees of the Morristown green when Mrs. Heffelfinger allegedly was injured. Mrs.

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.

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

Fleetwood Homes of Florida, Inc. v. Reeves

833 So. 2d 857 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 27, 2002

This immunity is somewhat different from the affirmative defense of qualified immunity in a civil rights case, which is given comparable nonfinal appeal status. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.130(3)(c)(vii); Montague v. … In a civil rights case, qualified immunity is a separate and distinct question from the plaintiff's theory of liability. See, e.g., Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 , 122 S.Ct. 2508 , 153 L.Ed.2d 666 (2002).

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.

Snyder v. Specialty Glass Products, Inc.

441 Pa. Super. 613 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 27, 1995

These acts *630 clearly are ones which an employee such as Snyder would expect to occur at the workplace. … Therefore, under the test enunciated in McGinn, Snyder’s allegation of IIED does not qualify under the co-employee immunity provision in section 205 of the WCA.

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.

Ebert v. Nebraska Department of Correctional Services

11 Neb. Ct. App. 553 · Nebraska Court of Appeals · Feb 11, 2003

Stat. § 83-1 ,110 (Reissue 1994) specifically controls the calculation of his 1997 sentences and that judicial interpretation and the legislative intent of that provision clearly establish his entitlement to good time credit … The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that they were entitled to qualified immunity from suit and that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Baez v. City of Amsterdam

245 A.D.2d 705 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 11, 1997

immunity. … Although plaintiff maintains that Supreme Court’s grant of summary judgment was premature absent a sharp factual dispute, the applicability of the qualified immunity doctrine, which shields from liability those official acts

In re Ruby G. Owen Trust

2012 Ark. App. 381 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jun 13, 2012

We have stated repeatedly that we would not reverse a finding by a trial court in an equity case unless it was clearly erroneous. Id. … The trial court denied the modification, finding, among other things, that it would only permit the family to immunize itself financially from reimbursing the state for the beneficiary’s medical care. Id.

Swift v. DEPT. OF TRANSP. OF COM.

937 A.2d 1162 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 7, 2007

Burns was qualified to testify as an expert witness for the Department. Once qualified, an expert witness may testify on broad topics and specialties within their field. Kuisis v. … In its reply brief, Appellants admit that Haverford, Radnor and the School District enjoy qualified immunity from actions for damages, but argue that they have no immunity from actions for injunctive relief. [7] The remaining

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.