Case law

Randal Law v. Texas Department of Insurance – Division of Workers' Compensation Subsequent Injury Fund, Jeff Nelson, Kara MacE, and Blaise Gerstenlauer

Texas Court of Appeals, 15th District · Apr 18, 2025

Clearly the Appellees should continue to use their CLEAR program. … Labor Code §408. 162 applies when an injury combines with a subsequent injury to qualify an injured employee for LIBs.

Lacey v. Ohio Aud. of State

2019 Ohio 4266 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 17, 2019

This privilege is either absolute or qualified. Mettke v. Mouser, 10th Dist. No. 12AP-1083, 2013-Ohio-2781, ¶ 6. … The procedure for determining this immunity is set forth in R.C. 2743.02(F).

Kenneth Mark Dorrough v. John Murray Faircloth and Helen Bowen

443 S.W.3d 278 · Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · Jul 30, 2014

Elements of Official Immunity Official immunity, sometimes called qualified immunity, is an affirmative defense. … Kilburn, 849 S.W.2d 810, 812 n.1 (Tex. 1993) (noting that qualified immunity and official immunity are terms that are often used interchangeably).

Patrick v. Wake County Department of Human Services

188 N.C. App. 592 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 5, 2008

Here, defendants’ insurance policy unambiguously states, “this policy provides coverage only for occurrences or wrongful acts for which the defense of governmental immunity is clearly not applicable . ...” … The defense of sovereign immunity clearly applies to bar plaintiff’s claims. The trial court properly granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment. This assignment of error is overruled. D.

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.

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.

Carlson v. State

240 Ga. App. 589 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Nov 1, 1999

that causes anxiety and impairs his immune system, he regularly uses marijuana for its medicinal benefits. … In seeking this charge, Carlson was effectively attempting to supplant the legislature’s decision not to establish an exception to the crime of possession of marijuana when the marijuana is purportedly being used for medicinal

West Bend Mutual Insurance Co. v. Community Unit School District 300

456 Ill. Dec. 298 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 12, 2021

Thus, they clearly intended to treat these types of insureds differently. … Nonetheless, the district would be immune from a negligence suit pursuant to the Tort Immunity Act.

Tucker v. Resha

634 So. 2d 756 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Mar 30, 1994

The award of money damages against Tucker naturally implicates the doctrine of sovereign immunity. … That case, however, held only that the provision is "clearly implicated" in a woman's decision not to continue her pregnancy. Id. at 1192 .

Wald v. City of Margate

756 So. 2d 168 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Mar 29, 2000

Once the facts are established, the test applied by the court to those facts is the “ ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the action ... in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken … Under those circumstances Officer Edstrand would not be “entitled to the defense of qualified immunity since [his] conduct violated clearly established constitutional law.” Redo v.

Edgar v. Plummer

845 S.W.2d 452 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jan 12, 1993

Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 51.014 (Vernon Supp.1993), to challenge the trial court’s denial of summary judgment. 2 Edgar argues that he was entitled to summary judgment because of qualified immunity. … Edgar contends that Plummer's crossing the shoulder line violated Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 6701d, § 60 (Vernon 1977): Whenever any roadway has been divided into two (2) or more clearly marked lanes for traffic the following

Jordan Darrell Morris v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Court of Appeals of Virginia · May 9, 2023

The trial court found Morris did not qualify for immunity under the statute. … the three categories of individuals who may qualify for immunity and (B)(2) as adding additional necessary criteria

People v. Lebovitz

31 A.D.2d 960 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 24, 1969

In our opinion, the evidence of appellants’ guilt was convincingly established beyond a rea* *961 sonable doubt. There are, however, certain claimed errors presented by appellants which merit 'discussion. … The two questions to which the witness claimed privilege were only incidental and collateral and, clearly, the error was not substantial enough to justify a reversal (cf. United States v.

Brown v. Smith

235 Cal. Rptr. 3d 218 · California Court of Appeal, 5th District · Jul 2, 2018

Also, pupils who qualify for an individualized education program are allowed access to any special education and related services required by that program. ( § 120335, subd. (h).) … The applicable authorities-legal and scientific-clearly show that immunization is reasonably related to maintaining the health of the subject of the immunization as well as the public health. c.

University of the Incarnate Word v. Redus

474 S.W.3d 816 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Aug 26, 2015

This judicial admission establishes UIW was not created or established by Texas law, but instead originated and maintains the status of a .charitable, private institution run by a Catholic order of nuns.:,. . … However, this limited delegation of authority does not qualify UIW as a governmental unit.

Owen v. Haywood County

205 N.C. App. 456 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 20, 2010

“However, when the motion is made on the grounds of sovereign and qualified immunity, such a denial is immediately appealable, because to force a defendant to proceed with a trial from which he should be immune would vitiate … The insurance policy at issue contained the following exclusion: “this policy provides coverage only for occurrences or wrongful acts for which the defense of governmental immunity is clearly not applicable or for which,

Kevin M. Pritts v. City of Round Rock, Round Rock Police Department, and Jeffrey Floyd

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Mar 25, 2004

An officer is shielded by immunity if a reasonable officer could have believed the act was lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the officer possessed. Id. at 641; see Hunter v. … As discussed above, Floyd established his right to qualified immunity. 7 1997) (tort claims act does not apply to claim arising out of false imprisonment or other intentional

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.

Wilson v. Jackson

66 Md. App. 744 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 12, 1986

“Qualified or ‘good faith’ immunity is an affirmative defense that ... has both an ‘objective’ and a ‘subjective’ aspect. … Characteristically the Court has defined these elements by identifying the circumstances in which qualified immunity would not be available.

Risk Management Strategies, Inc. v. Texas Workforce Commission Commissioner Andres Alcantar Commissioner Ronald G. Congleton And Commissioner Hope Andrade

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · May 22, 2015

The term “claim” is not defined in the Act, but the term “valid claim” is, and means “a claim filed by an unemployed individual who has received the wages necessary to qualify for benefits.” Id. … The other provisions within this chapter are also clearly concerned with the procedure for resolving disputes over claims for unemployment benefits.