Case law

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 .

Gregory v. Kilbride

150 N.C. App. 601 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 18, 2002

Kilbride moved to dismiss the action on the grounds of qualified immunity; the trial court denied that motion as well as Dr. … Kilbride moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The trial court denied the motion for summary judgment. Dr.

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.

Max Grossman/City of El Paso v. City of El Paso/Max Grossman

Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso) · Nov 10, 2021

City of Mexia, 197 S.W.3d 325, 331 (Tex. 2006) (governmental immunity is “an established principle of jurisprudence in all civilized nations”) quoting Beers v. … The court reached this conclusion, reasoning the section 442.012 did not clearly and unambiguously waive immunity. Like our statute, section 442.012 does not expressly mention suing a government entity.

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.

Stubbe v. Stubbe

710 S.W.2d 673 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Apr 16, 1986

Of course, under established principles of contract law, an obligation to pay “contractual alimony” cannot be modified or avoided on the ground that it has become more burdensome than anticipated. Mahrer v. … The court, in examining the congressional intent behind § 659(a), observed that “Section 659(a) clearly indicates the intent of Congress to make current wages (entitlement based upon remuneration of employment) subject to

Gordon v. Scott

6 S.W.3d 365 · Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont) · Jan 5, 2000

West and Vela assert that, to the extent they are sued in their individual capacities, they are entitled to official or qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity describes an affirmative defense for governmental employees sued in their individual capacities. See Harrison, 915 S.W.2d at 888 .

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.

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.

Falzone v. Rutkowski

46 Ohio App. 3d 166 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 25, 1988

may be asserted to establish non-liability: * * “(5) The political subdivision is immune from liability if the injury, death, or loss to persons or property resulted from the exercise of judgment or discretion * * * unless … Accordingly, appellee, a regional transit authority and a political subdivision, qualifies for sovereign immunity within R.C. 2744.03.

Barese v. Clark

62 Conn. App. 58 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Feb 27, 2001

Addressing a claim similar to the one pressed here, namely, that the immunity enjoyed by a prosecutor is not absolute, but instead is qualified, the court in Imbler explained: “If a prosecutor had only a qualified immunity … But the alternative of qualifying a prosecutor’s immunity would dis-serve the broader public interest.

Colantonio v. Mercy Medical Center

135 A.D.3d 686 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 13, 2016

The defendants established, prima facie, that they were entitled to a qualified privilege under 42 USC § 11111 (a), part of the Health Care Quality Improvement Act, which creates a qualified privilege for information provided … Among other things, he argues in his brief that he “clearly should be given the opportunity to depose each and every one of the Appellants.”

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.

East Houston Estate Apartments, L.L.C. v. the City of Houston

Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Jun 25, 2009

This is clearly not the type of "service" envisioned by section 271.152. … Section 271.152 is clearly limited as to which contracts fall under the waiver of immunity from suit. See Tex. Loc.

v. CSG Redevelopment

2019 COA 91 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Jun 20, 2019

Partners, LLLP (CSGR) — is an “instrumentality” of a public entity entitled to immunity under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, §§ 24-10-103, -106, C.R.S. 2018. … State, 35 P.3d 443, 452 (Colo. 2001); such a finding is clearly erroneous only if there’s no support for it in the record, M.D.C./Wood, Inc. v. Mortimer, 866 P.2d 1380, 1384 (Colo. 1994).