Case law

Fair v. County of Bergen

151 N.J. Super. 520 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 13, 1977

Any liability of a public entity established by this act is subject to any immunity of the public entity and is subject to any defenses that would be available to the public entity if it were a private person. … Div. 1976), "the basic legislative premise is to re-establish immunity for all governmental bodies within its definition of *523 `public entity.'

Chinwuba v. Larsen

142 Md. App. 327 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 31, 2002

In other tort contexts, Larsen has only a qualified immunity. See CJ § 5-522(b). … This conditional privilege has the same “scope of duty” limitation as an absolute privilege or a qualified immunity.

City of Coppell v. Waltman

997 S.W.2d 633 · Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas) · Dec 16, 1998

In three points of error, Offi *635 cer Kubicek and the City contend the trial court erred in holding that they were not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity and in overruling their objections to … Therefore, a city may rely on section 51.014(a)(5) to appeal the denial of summary judgment based on sovereign immunity through its employees’ qualified or official immunity. City of Beverly Hills v.

Berry v. State of California

2 Cal. App. 4th 688 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 10, 1992

We shall further conclude that a free stump does not qualify as a diving platform. … Berry appeals contending the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer as she had pled facts which established an exception to the section 831.7 immunity asserted by the State.

Rodrigues v. City of New York

193 A.D.2d 79 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 21, 1993

Thus, prosecutors acting in an " 'investigative’ ” or " 'administrative’ ” capacity are entitled only to qualified immunity. (Barr v Abrams, 810 F2d 358, 361 [2d Cir 1987].) … (But see, Cunningham v State of New York, 71 AD2d 181, 183 [prosecutor engaged in the role of an investigator "should not enjoy absolute but only qualified immunity”].)

Haydon Building Corporation v. Jacie Lynn Green

Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso) · Jul 31, 2024

—San Antonio 2022, pet. denied) (describing that § 97.002 “creates immunity for qualifying contractors based on the nature of the legal injury or damage rather than the type of cause of action or claim.”). … ANALYSIS In its sole issue, Haydon Building argues it conclusively established its entitlement to § 97.002 immunity.

Loveland v. St. Vrain Valley School District RE-1J

410 P.3d 619 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Sep 24, 2015

Rather, “the condition of an individual zip line on a playground might qualify as a dangerous condition but not as a ‘facility.’” Id. at ¶21. … Vrain II as requiring the Lovelands to assert a physical or structural defect in the zip line, such as a rusty or obstructed track, in order to establish the first prong of the dangerous condition test.

Nichele Giron v. Justin Hice

Colorado Court of Appeals · Jul 28, 2022

¶ 14 Thus, “[i]t is well-established that the application of sovereign immunity [under the CGIA] presents a mixed question of fact and law.” Maphis v. City of Boulder, 2022 CO 10, ¶ 14. … “[W]e defer to the district court’s factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous.” Id. A factual finding is clearly erroneous when it lacks no support in the record. Whiting-Turner Contracting Co. v.

Houghton v. Forrest

183 Md. App. 15 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 31, 2008

These words of the General Assembly clearly indicate that H.B. 908 did not codify the common law public official immunity doctrine as a whole. … ] statute [CJP § 5-507] was to codify existing public official immunity, and not to extend the scope of qualified immunity beyond its Maryland common law boundaries.

Justin Irwin v. John Bradley Brent

Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jul 19, 2024

The Landry case explained that when the defendant does not enjoy any qualifying privilege or immunity, the courts must perform a comparative fault analysis. … Only when it is established that a defendant’s retaliatory force was unreasonable and not qualifying for a defense or immunity, would a comparative fault analysis be required.

Harris County Texas v. Kassandra Deary

Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Jan 23, 2024

Under Texas law, governmental units, including counties, are generally entitled to governmental immunity from suit and liability unless the state legislature has clearly and unambiguously waived immunity. … Nowhere else did the County address immunity regarding Deary’s Section 1983 claims. Federal law clearly establishes that Harris County does not have immunity under Section 1983.

Mosier v. State Board of Pardons & Paroles

213 Ga. App. 545 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · May 24, 1994

S__(113 SC 2606, 125 LE2d 209, 226) (1993) (“when a prosecutor ‘functions as an administrator rather than as an officer of the court’ he is entitled only to qualified immunity”). … ‘(I)n enacting § 1983, Congress did not intend to override well-established immunities or defenses under the common law. . . . The doctrine of sovereign immunity was a familiar doctrine at common law. . . .

Butler v. VT DOC

Vermont Superior Court · Feb 19, 2020

As to the FTCA, upon which the VTCA is based, Denis Bail Bonds, Inc., 159 Vt. at 485, federal law is clear that establishing a valid waiver of sovereign immunity is needed to establish subject matter jurisdiction. … As with qualified immunity, sovereign immunity “is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability.” Billado v. Appel, 165 Vt. 482, 498 (1996).

Clawson v. Wharton County

941 S.W.2d 267 · Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Jan 16, 1997

In the Clawson suit, the defendants moved for summary judgment by asserting absolute prosecutorial immunity, qualified “good faith” immunity, and sovereign immunity. … In the subsequent Chambers suit, defendants also asserted absolute immunity, sovereign immunity, and no constitutional cause of action, but abandoned the qualified immunity defense.

Blair v. State

42 P.3d 1152 · Court of Appeals of Alaska · Mar 8, 2002

erroncous 4 Based on the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the trial judge was not clearly wrong when he concluded that Blair's wife's statement was an excited utterance. … State, 832 P.2d 589, 591 (Alaska App.1992) ("A trial judge's ruling that a particular out-of-court statement qualifies as an excited utterance depends on the specific facts of the case and is, in effect, a finding of fact

Carl W. Schwartz v. King County

Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 27, 2020

Thus, “[t]o qualify for immunity under RCW 4.24.210, the landowner must establish that the land at issue was (1) open to members of the public (2) for recreational purposes and that (3) no fee was charged.” … This case is factually different from Jewels because, unlike in Jewels, expert testimony in this case clearly establishes there is a material dispute of facts as to latency.

Kostroski v. County of Marathon

158 Wis. 2d 201 · Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · Sep 18, 1990

We conclude that attendance at a picnic and as a spectator at a ball game in the park qualifies as recreational activity as well. … The Bystery court reconciled the apparent conflict between the recreational immunity statute and the highway liability statute by establishing this rule: " [U]nder sec. 895.52, Stats., a municipality is immune from liability

Ramah Navajo School Board, Inc. v. Bureau of Revenue

104 N.M. 302 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Jun 3, 1986

While the Supreme Court, in Gomez, was discussing the standard of pleading required in a Section 1983 action when qualified immunity is at issue, lower courts, in cases more factually similar to ours, have basically reiterated … This clearly represents a request for prospective injunctive relief. The doctrines of Eleventh Amendment and sovereign immunity do not bar such suits. Edelman v. Jordan; Gumbhir v. Kansas State Board of Pharmacy.

McNEELY v. STATE

422 P.3d 1272 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · May 24, 2018

Petitioner may be able to establish a factual basis for a Stand Your Ground defense; but she cannot establish a clear legal right to the relief of Stand Your Ground immunity from prosecution. Id . … Yet, the immunity created in section 1289.25 is a conditional immunity meaning that it applies only if certain factual elements are established. See, e.g., People v.

Barbetta Agency, Inc. v. Evening News Pub. Co.

135 N.J. Super. 214 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 27, 1975

We have long recognized the existence of a qualified privilege that confers immunity upon a public official for defamation uttered in relation to matters committed by law to his control or supervision. Coleman v. … Thus, we find no genuine issue of fact established to defeat Megaro's defense of qualified privilege. Accordingly, the summary judgment as to defendants News and Megaro is affirmed.