Case law

Smith v. Hopland Band of Pomo Indians

115 Cal. Rptr. 2d 455 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 6, 2002

Instead, it establishes a general principle of tribal law defining what acts may be deemed to constitute a waiver of its immunity. … Although we fail to understand why the clearly established law on this point continues to be disregarded, in the interest of judicial economy, we shall deem the order to incorporate a judgment of dismissal.

Carlton v. Davission

104 Ohio App. 3d 636 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 16, 1995

immunity. … U.S.Code; (8) Davisson was entitled to either absolute or qualified immunity from suit for alleged civil rights violations under Section 1983; and (7) the deputy and the sheriffs department were entitled to sovereign immunity

Texas Department of Human Services v. Ara Living Centers of Texas, Inc.

833 S.W.2d 689 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Aug 26, 1992

TDHS also asserts that ARA’s suit is barred by the doctrine of governmental immunity. 1. … Governmental Immunity TDHS also argues that ARA’s suit to obtain declaratory relief is barred by the doctrine of governmental immunity. This assertion is also without merit.

Gundel v. Whalen Lawn & Landscaping, L.L.C.

2022 Ohio 2763 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 10, 2022

. {¶8} Gundel responded by arguing that WLL was the employer and though Whalen was its sole member, he did not qualify as employer on the facts of this case. … ruling and finds Whalen is entitled to immunity under these statutory provisions.

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).

Brooks v. Powers

Connecticut Appellate Court · Apr 26, 2016

[Where] the material facts . . . are undisputed . . . we exercise plenary review over the trial court’s determination that the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.’’ … Generally, a municipal employee is liable for the misperformance of ministerial acts, but has a qualified immunity in the performance of governmental acts. . . .

the City of Fort Worth v. Janet Anne Lane

Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth) · Dec 22, 2011

In one issue, Fort Worth argues that Lane did not establish a waiver of immunity under the Texas Whistleblower Act because she did not make a good faith report of a violation of law. … hold that Lane established a waiver of immunity under the Whistleblower Act, we affirm the trial court’s order.

Seeds v. Lucero

137 N.M. 589 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Mar 30, 2005

To hold a public official’s immunity to be only qualified, as the dissent contends we should, would require a rejection of our rationale in McBrayer, if not legislative action. … The VanderVossens may defend themselves by establishing that the City Defendants’ actions were proper and did not result in any injury to Plaintiffs.

Ahmed Zidan v. Alexander Zidan F/K/A Mohammed Zidan

Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas) · Nov 30, 2022

Communications in such proceedings are entitled to absolute immunity notwithstanding the actor’s motivation. … To the extent the majority has determined that the TREC communications constitute an unsolicited report to law enforcement or to a public officer that is only entitled to qualified immunity where motivation and malice

Normandin v. Encanto

425 P.3d 243 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Jun 26, 2018

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 In 1991, the City and Encanto’s predecessor executed an agreement to establish a children’s amusement park within Encanto Park (“Park”) in “an area . . . known as Picnic Island … Encanto Is Immune under Section 33-1551(A) as a “Manager” of the Piñata Area. ¶11 According to Normandin, Encanto does not qualify as an entity protected by the statute.

Indiana State Highway Commission v. Indiana Civil Rights Commission

424 N.E.2d 1024 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 13, 1981

Pape (1961), 365 U.S. 167 , 81 S.Ct. 473 , 5 L.Ed.2d 492 , which established the immunity of municipalities from § 1983. … The finding of a discriminatory practice was clearly based on facts that either appeared on the record or could reasonably be inferred from the record.

Shope v. Portsmouth

2012 Ohio 1605 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 4, 2012

. {¶13} Once immunity is generally established, “the second tier of analysis is whether any of the five exceptions to immunity in subsection (B) apply.” Id. at ¶ 12. … In other words, regardless of whether obstruction-related traffic control devices qualify as public roads, Scioto App.

People v. Anderson

293 Mich. App. 33 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 7, 2011

In order to qualify for this immunity, a person must he a “qualifying patient,” must have been issued and possess a “registry identification card,” and must not have more than “2.5 ounces of useable” marijuana or more than … Consequently, because he clearly failed to establish his § 8 defense on other grounds, it is unnecessary to determine whether Anderson had to present expert testimony in order to establish the reasonableness of the amount

Hertog v. City of Seattle

88 Wash. App. 41 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 22, 1997

It stated that when acting outside any judicial or quasi-judicial process, parole officers have only qualified immunity: We hold that parole officers are entitled to quasi-judicial immunity only for those functions they perform … Thus, Lake is protected only by qualified immunity. Lake’s protection does not extend to the County. 59 The County relies almost exclusively on McKenna to establish that Lake owed no duty to S.H.

Kuelbs v. Williams

609 N.W.2d 10 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Apr 11, 2000

Are respondents protected from defamation liability by qualified privilege? 3. … The district court did not reach the issue of privilege because it concluded respondents were entitled to official immunity and vicarious official immunity.

Gast v. State, by and Through Stevenson

36 Or. App. 441 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 2, 1978

Suffice it to say Chapter 330 regulates "fringe benefit” programs established by employers of labor organizations that provide medical and disability benefits and thus clearly comes within the broad definition of "employee … "(b) No State may establish or enforce any law which prevents a health maintenance organization for which a grant, contract, loan, or loan guarantee was made under this subchapter or which is a qualified health maintenance

A.B. v. County of San Diego

California Court of Appeal · Jul 18, 2025

immunity because it found there was “no clearly established law that would have put [the deputy defendants] on notice that the force they used was excessive.” … immunity.

Downing v. Brown

925 S.W.2d 316 · Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo) · Jun 11, 1996

Appellees’ brief focuses on their qualified immunity from liability under § 1983; however, before the necessity of making that determination arises, we must examine whether appellant has stated a constitutional violation. … Consequently, we need not address the issue of qualified immunity. Appellant’s fourth point of error is overruled.

Adkins v. McCartt

723 S.W.2d 627 · Court of Appeals of Tennessee · Aug 14, 1986

The record indicates Robbins is a contract employee and not an officer for immunity purposes. … The same is true of alleged “hiring of supervisors who did not qualify to properly supervise such highway construction....”

Deegan Ex Rel. Deegan v. Jefferson County

188 Wis. 2d 544 · Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · Oct 27, 1994

The district court granted the motion, concluding that the defendants did not violate Deegan's civil rights and, further, even if they had, they were entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate "a clearly … The district court also held that even if the social workers had violated Deegan's claimed "right of family integrity," they were entitled to qualified immunity.