Case law

Tallaksen v. Ross

167 N.J. Super. 1 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 7, 1979

Defendant's 70-acre undeveloped tract qualifies for immunity under the act when used for the statutorily defined recreational purposes, despite its zoning classification as residential lands and its proximity to developed … Clearly, plaintiff's recreational activities on defendant's undeveloped land represented the fulfillment of the legislative objective and, consistent *5 with the act's promise of immunity with respect to such use, defendant's

GUTSTEIN v. City of Evanston

402 Ill. App. 3d 610 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 4, 2010

The trial court determined, after hearing all of the evidence presented to the jury, that the City had failed to establish that it qualified for discretionary immunity under the Act. 745 ILCS 10/2 — 201 ( West 2008 ). … The City has the burden of proving that it qualifies for discretionary immunity and the City failed to meet that burden. Van Meter, 207 Ill. 2d at 370 .

Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport Board v. Funderburk

188 S.W.3d 233 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jan 26, 2006

Thus, the law is settled that the TCHRA clearly and unambiguously waives governmental immunity for the governmental entities that are statutorily defined as employers. … The DFW Board appears to argue that the TCHRA must clearly and unambiguously waive governmental immunity specifically as to it. We cannot agree with this contention.

State v. Abdi

236 Ariz. 609 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Feb 26, 2015

¶10 With defined exceptions, the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act provides immunity from prosecution to a registered qualifying patient for 2 We cite to the current versions of the statutes, which have not been … ¶11 The Act gives a qualifying patient issued a registry identification card by another state the same presumptions and immunities when she visits Arizona. A.R.S. § 36-2804.03(C).

McPherson v. Fitzpatrick

63 Mich. App. 461 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 14, 1975

Plaintiff would apply "the doctrine of the last antecedent” which provides that qualifying words and phrases refer only to the last antecedent where no contrary intention appears. … "(c) 'State’ means the state of Michigan and its agencies, departments, and commissions, and shall include every public university and college of the state, whether established as a constitutional corporation or otherwise

Redcross v. State

241 A.D.2d 787 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 24, 1997

It is also well settled that “in the field of traffic design engineering, the State is accorded a qualified immunity from liability arising out of a highway planning decision” (Friedman v State of New York, supra, at 283) … “Under this doctrine of qualified immunity, a governmental body may be held liable when its study of a traffic condition is plainly inadequate or there is no reasonable basis for its traffic plan” (id., at 284 [citation omitted

Smith v. ALZA CORPORATION

400 N.J. Super. 529 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 9, 2008

The motion judge summarily dismissed plaintiff's complaint finding that defendant qualified for "seller" immunity under N.J.S.A. 2A:58C-9. … As such, we conclude that defendant does not qualify as a "product seller" entitled to immunity from liability under N.J.S.A. 2A:58C-9.

Whitney v. Jersey Cent. Power & Light

240 N.J. Super. 420 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 1, 1990

The Act, in our view, would clearly go beyond these goals were it construed to grant a blanket *424 immunity to all property owners, particularly to those owning lands in densely populated urban or suburban areas, without … The Supreme Court made this statement in concluding that a reservoir, which probably would qualify for the immunity provided by the Act if located in an undeveloped area, does not enjoy that immunity if it is located in the

Johnson v. Baldrick, Ca2007-01-013 (4-14-2008)

2008 Ohio 1794 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 14, 2008

Appellees and the trial court conflate the distinct concepts of duty and immunity. Immunity does not extinguish a duty. Immunity serves to remove liability if the duty is violated. … faith can show that the official acted in willful, reckless or wanton disregard of rights established under law."

Whistle Stop Inn, Inc. v. City of Indianapolis

36 N.E.3d 1118 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 24, 2015

A judgment on the pleadings is proper only when there are no genuine issues of material fact and when the facts shown by the pleadings clearly establish that the non-moving party cannot in any way succeed under the facts … We find that here, the remaining provisions can clearly be given such effect. VI.

Utica Mutual Insurance v. Gaithersburg-Washington Grove Fire Department, Inc.

53 Md. App. 589 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 2, 1983

The trial court erred in ruling that the appellee had established the defense of governmental immunity; 2. … If these two conditions are found to exist, a qualified immunity attaches. This immunity frees the individual from liability in the absence of malice. Id.

Nelson v. Town of St. Johnsbury

Vermont Superior Court · Aug 7, 2013

that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … If it was clearly established at the time of termination that he was a public employee with a property interest in his employment, he had a clearly established right to pre-termination notice and a hearing.

Bennett v. Columbiana Cty. Coroner

2016 Ohio 7182 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 30, 2016

Clearly, this record does not support Appellant’s contentions that she be regarded as a whistleblower. … Graham in his individual capacity, we must analyze whether immunity applies pursuant to R.C. 2744.03(A)(6). Subsection (C) clearly does not apply. We must look to whether Dr.

Tyler v. W. Brown Local School

2018 Ohio 3624 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 10, 2018

If immunity applies under R.C. 2744.02(A)(1), then the second tier of the analysis carves out exceptions which re- establish the liability of a political subdivision. R.C. 2744.02(B). … Western Brown, as a public school district, qualifies as a political subdivision engaged in governmental or proprietary functions, and it and its employees are generally immune from civil liability.

DeSilva v. Baker

208 Ariz. 597 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Sep 7, 2004

But, to determine whether particular conduct fits either under the common law absolute immunity or qualified immunity, the Court applied a "functional approach” based on "the nature of the function performed.” … In such a case, the prosecutor acting as a complaining witness is only entitled to qualified immunity. Id. 9 .

Milgram v. ORBITZ WORLDWIDE, INC.

419 N.J. Super. 305 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 26, 2010

As a result, plaintiffs submit that the CDA's immunity provisions are unavailable to defendants because they qualify as "information content providers" under the Act. … The language of § 230 sets forth three criteria to qualify for the immunity provided. First, immunity is available only to a "provider or user of an interactive computer service." 47 U.S.C.A. § 230 (c)(1).

People v. Doss

4 Cal. App. 4th 1585 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 1, 1992

Clearly, a pharmacist who purchases controlled substances with the intention of distributing them to persons not holding valid prescriptions is not conducting the ordinary business of the pharmacy, and the drugs are not “ … He had qualified as an expert witness six times concerning the possession, manufacture, and possession for sale of scheduled pharmaceuticals.

Pauley v. Circleville

2012 Ohio 2378 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 23, 2012

Cincinnati, 103 Ohio App.3d 80, 85, 658 N.E.2d 814 (1995) (stating that whether qualified immunity applies is a question of law). … The court stated: “To qualify for recreational-user immunity, property need not be completely natural, but its essential character should fit within the intent of the statute.” Id. at 114.

Berg v. Merricks

20 Md. App. 666 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 18, 1974

No instructional standard was established. The judge was clearly correct in refusing to permit the jury to speculate on the “might have been theories propounded by appellants.” “ ... … The statute clearly deprives the superintendent of the limited protection of governmental immunity enjoyed by public officers. In addition, Lyman v.

Jason Graham v. Cobb County, Georgia

Court of Appeals of Georgia · Jul 11, 2012

(ii) Official Immunity Under the doctrine of official, or qualified, immunity, law enforcement officers may be personally liable for negligent actions taken in the performance of ministerial functions … beneficiary of a contract made between other parties for his benefit may maintain an action against the promisor on the contract.”22 “In order for a third party to have standing to enforce a contract[,] . . . it must clearly