Case law

McLarnon v. Massachusetts General Hospital

14 Mass. L. Rptr. 203 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Oct 9, 2001

Similarly, court ordered payments to experts do not establish relationships that interfere with grants of judicial immunity. LaLonde at 212 , n.9. … Therefore, McLarnon can not be considered as one clearly and definitely intended to benefit from the relationship between the defendants and the court. V.

Ballex v. Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System

2016 La.App. 1 Cir. 0905 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Apr 18, 2017

She later filed a supplemental answer to appeal, contending that the trial court further erred in awarding an incorrect amount for the monthly spousal benefit, which she contends was “clearly a clerical error.” … The evidence of record establishes that MPERS' is also a “qualified” plan under section 401 of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 401 , entitled “Qualified pension, profit-sharing, and stock bonus plans.”

Fla. Fern Growers Ass'n v. Concerned Citizens

616 So. 2d 562 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Apr 2, 1993

While appellees criticize appellant for equating "the limited immunity from suit accorded under the First Amendment" with the qualified privilege of Florida's common law, the supreme court's recent opinion in Londono does … Appellant thus seems correct in asserting that even where a qualified privilege exists, i.e.

Mixter v. Farmer

215 Md. App. 536 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 19, 2013

Whether the trial court erred in granting appellees’ motions for summary judgment and holding that absolute judicial privilege and/or qualified privilege immunized appellees from the following claims: 1) defamation, libel … Carr concluded that “if there was immunity from liability for defamation, there was immunity from liability for the other alleged torts claimed by the [plaintiff] to have been committed.” Id. at 583 , 177 A.2d 841 .

Prescott v. Pritchett

509 So. 2d 222 · Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · Mar 12, 1986

It is their contention that they are entitled to the defense of qualified immunity. They state that there was absolutely no evidence of bad faith on their part to justify a damages verdict. In Wood v. … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense which must be specifically asserted by the defendants in a section 1983 action. Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635 , 100 S.Ct. 1920 , 64 L.Ed.2d 572 (1980).

Pumphrey v. Kinnan, Kinnan

District Court of Appeal of Florida · Apr 4, 2025

Several recorded opinions clearly establish that absolute immunity also protects a public official when a plaintiff "retool[s]" a defamation claim by recasting it as another cause of action. … But, the majority illustrates in section II that Florida law is already well settled on the mechanics and scope of such immunity. I therefore believe that the law is sufficiently clearly established in this regard. Cf.

Florida Department of Health v. Joseph Redner, an individual

273 So. 3d 170 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Apr 3, 2019

Redner) with immunity from criminal or civil liability under Florida law for the “medical use of marijuana” that is “in compliance” with the amendment (emphasis added). … Does not immunize violations of federal law or any non-medical use, possession or production of marijuana. Id. at 476.

Bristol ex rel. Child v. Gonzales Police Dep't ex rel. Child

240 So. 3d 232 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Dec 21, 2017

The purpose of this statute is to provide a qualified statutory immunity from liability to drivers of emergency vehicles, under very specific circumstances. See Rabalais v. … The supreme court went on to examine each section of the statute, and outlined the circumstances in which the driver of an emergency vehicle is granted particular driving privileges, also known as a qualified immunity.

La Russa Appeal

232 Pa. Super. 272 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 11, 1974

It is necessary here to examine the Commonwealth’s petition requesting the grant of immunity in order to establish whether or not the grant of immunity was proper in this case. … In that opinion, it was reasoned that the Legislature had clearly set limitations on the scope of immunity in the Act of November 22, 1968, supra, and had limited such grants of immunity to situations involving “organized

Pakeer v. Cleveland

2023 Ohio 4213 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 22, 2023

The City is generally immune from liability based on the allegations advanced. … In other words, according to the panel, EMS providers responding to and then completing that call for emergency medical care or treatment qualify for the additional defense to immunity established under R.C. 2744.02(B)(

Finkelstein v. State

157 So. 3d 1085 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 26, 2015

Section 776.032 provides that if a defendant establishes that the force used was justified under any of the applicable statutes, the defendant qualifies for immunity from prosecution. … At the conclusion of the hearing, the circuit court ruled that Petitioner failed to carry his burden to establish his entitlement to immunity from prosecution, based on the “credible substantial evidence” that Sergeant Johnson

Brown v. NC DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENT

714 S.E.2d 154 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 7, 2011

waived its immunity from suit." … The decision "whether an employee is exempt under the Act is primarily a question of fact which must be reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard...." Blackmon v.

City of Baytown v. Peoples

9 S.W.3d 391 · Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · Dec 9, 1999

Thus, under section 101.060, liability clearly is based on premises defects. … The terms "official immunity” and "qualified immunity”, refer to the same type of immunity, and, therefore, are used interchangeably.

Lane v. Atchison Heritage Conference Center, Inc.

35 Kan. App. 2d 838 · Court of Appeals of Kansas · Jun 2, 2006

This court’s standard of review of summary judgment motions is well established. … Because the governmental entity bears the burden of establishing the applicability of an exception to tort liability under the KTCA, summary judgment on the grounds of tori immunity under K.S.A. 2002 Supp. 75-6104(o) was

Kachlon v. Markowitz

168 Cal. App. 4th 316 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 17, 2008

Established law is to the contrary. … Moreover, we are unable to conclude that providing qualified immunity to beneficiaries who act as trustees results in an absurdity. (Unzueta v.

Segaline v. Department of Labor & Industries

144 Wash. App. 312 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 29, 2008

Clearly, claims challenging the communications themselves, here to 911 and police, are “based upon” the communication. ¶33 In Dang, Division One held that immunity under RCW 4.24.510 is not limited solely to communications … Because of this holding, we do not need to decide whether Croft had qualified immunity.

Stephen Fischer v. Richard Debrincat and Jason Debrincat

169 So. 3d 1204 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 15, 2015

To prevail in a malicious prosecution action, a plaintiff must establish the following six elements: (1) an original criminal or civil judicial proceeding against the present plaintiff was commenced or continued … They would enjoy at most a qualified privilege . . . .”).

Abdelgader v. Department of Transportation

2026 UT App 50 · Court of Appeals of Utah · Apr 2, 2026

In that motion, as relevant here, UDOT argued that the case should be dismissed because UDOT was immune from suit under the Act and, even if it was not immune, the Estate could not establish that UDOT had breached a duty … But this argument again conflates the notion that UDOT was required to conduct a specific analysis during the design process in order to qualify for discretionary immunity with the reality that so long as the ultimate “decisions

Jerolamon v. Fairleigh Dickinson University

199 N.J. Super. 179 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 4, 1985

The charitable immunity statute was passed as a legislative response to the 1958 Supreme Court rejection of the charitable immunity doctrine which had been the law of this State. See Dalton v. St. … Likewise, the nineteenth count alleges an extended course of conduct by University security guards and personnel against the plaintiffs and seeks to establish liability on the basis of negligent hiring of such guards.

Martin v. Heffelfinger

744 N.E.2d 555 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 15, 2001

The trial court held that Judge Hef-felfinger, in his official capacity, did not qualify under the prescribed meaning of "person" under § 1983, and therefore, he was immune from suit. Record at 30. … Martin contends that Judge Heffelfinger is clearly a state employee, and as his supervisors, Chief Justice Shepard, Governor O'Bannon, and the State had a duty to train him.