Case law

Transky v. Ohio Civil Rights Commission

193 Ohio App. 3d 354 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 15, 2011

If they were acting in the latter capacity, appellants claim that the officials are entitled only to qualified immunity. … , but merely qualified immunity.

Jones v. Peterman

743 A.2d 537 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 23, 1999

These defendants have no statewide policymaking functions, so do not qualify as officers of the Commonwealth for purposes of the Commonwealth Court’s original jurisdiction. … Jones seeks monetary damages for an alleged civil conspiracy to deprive him of his rights, which places his cause of action clearly within the definition of “action in trespass.”

People v. Singleton

182 Cal. App. 4th 1 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 22, 2010

On this matter, the high court held that once the defendant establishes that he has testified under a grant of immunity, the prosecuting authorities “ ‘have the burden of showing that their evidence is not tainted.’ ” (Kastigar … This court may find error only if the witness ‘ “clearly lacks qualification as an expert.” ’ [Citation.]

S. Hoover v. S.A. Stine, PennDOT and the Borough of Waynesboro

153 A.3d 1145 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 15, 2016

Not only has Hoover failed to establish that Waynesboro or PennDOT’s purported negligence caused her injuries, she has failed to establish that the alleged negligence fell within any exception to immunity. … In this case, the z-bricks and concrete headers clearly established the path for pedestrian egress across the highway, just as the painted crosswalk did in Glenn, thereby serving

Curtis David Lytle v. City of Suffolk

Court of Appeals of Virginia · Sep 16, 2025

The City, itself, must determine which areas qualify for—and require—camera coverage. … Code § 15.2-2209 authorizes localities to adopt ordinances establishing a uniform schedule of civil penalties for specified zoning ordinance violations.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. v. LISA S. DULBERG DE MORALES

District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 9, 2020

Resha, 648 So. 2d 1187, 1189 (Fla. 1994) (“[A]n order denying qualified immunity is ‘effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment,’ as the public official cannot be ‘re-immunized’ if erroneously required to … Jeffrey, 178 So. 3d 460, 465 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (certiorari available against order denying officer’s assertion of qualified immunity but not against denial of state’s assertion of sovereign immunity, since potentially

DRJ Atlantic, LLC D/B/A Hyundai of Jacksonville v. Amir Babadi,Cheryl Yeschenko, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and Progressive American Insurance Company

District Court of Appeal of Florida · Sep 5, 2024

Regarding claims of immunity, the rule permits interlocutory review of orders that deny claims of “(i) absolute or qualified immunity in a civil rights claim arising under federal law; . . . … As our supreme court explained in the context of qualified immunity—which, like the immunity at issue in this case, is immunity from suit rather than a defense to liability—the entitlement to

Hadley v. Department of Corrections

362 Ill. App. 3d 680 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 13, 2005

Thus, sovereign immunity bars lawsuits by a private citizen against the State in state court unless the legislature has waived the immunity. People ex rel. Manning v. … App. 3d 675, 682-83 , 695 N.E.2d 566, 571 (1998)), we ask whether plaintiff has pleaded facts establishing that he has a certain and clearly ascertainable right needing protection (see Local 1894 v. Holsapple, 201 Ill.

Ex Parte the City of Irving Texas v. the State of Texas

Texas Court of Appeals, 15th District · Feb 7, 2025

In its petition, the City alleged that the agreed final judgment “conclusively establishes” that all businesses in the “Project Area” qualify for rebates under Section 351.102. … Consequently, suits brought under the EDJA do not implicate immunity. Id.

Yorty v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

2013 Pa. Super. 265 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 2, 2013

Thus, to qualify as a collateral order, the order in question must meet three requirements: 1) separability from the main cause of action; 2) importance of the right to be reviewed; and 3) whether the claim will be irreparably … Grounding the line was clearly the obligation of appellee Yorty’s employer PPL Electric Utilities Corporation.

Gregor v. Argenot Great Central Ins. Co.

817 So. 2d 152 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jun 21, 2002

If the employee has a choice as to appropriate conduct, there is no immunity. … This argument is a veiled attempt to apply the qualified immunity adopted in LSA-R.S. 9:2798.1. [3] DHH has attached a copy of this article from the university's web site.

Leah Campanelli, V. Peacehealth Southwest Medical Center

Court of Appeals of Washington · May 5, 2025

Under ER 702, an expert’s opinion can be qualified by “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.” Whether an expert is qualified to render an opinion is a preliminary finding by the court under ER 104(a). … Establishing cause in fact involves a determination of what actually occurred and is generally left to the jury to decide. Id.

Batt v. Globe Engineering Co.

13 Kan. App. 2d 500 · Court of Appeals of Kansas · May 19, 1989

In Smith , the New Mexico Supreme Court held that a New Mexico statute making medical peer review records immune from discovery did not create an evidentiary privilege and, therefore, did not conflict with the court’s rules … The statute clearly and unambiguously provides that such transcripts are inadmissible at any proceeding, except those specifically set forth in K.S.A. 1988 Supp. 44-714.

Williams v. Brown & Root, Inc.

947 S.W.2d 673 · Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana) · Jun 6, 1997

Williams contends that the statute does not contemplate granting immunity to more than one general contractor. Therefore, Williams argues that because Eastman is immune, Brown & Root cannot be immune. Tex.Rev.Civ. Stat. … Similarly, in the instant case, Brown & Root qualifies as a general contractor because it procured Tracer’s services. Therefore, Brown & Root can avail itself of the protections of Article 8308-3.05(e).

Mulligan v. Rioux

38 Conn. App. 546 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Jul 25, 1995

The trial court concluded that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity, set aside the verdict of the jury, and rendered judgment for the defendants on all counts of the plaintiff’s complaint. … Our Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court, finding that the trial court applied the incorrect standard of qualified immunity to the plaintiff’s common law claims and had improperly substituted its judgment

Robinson v. V. D.

Connecticut Appellate Court · Nov 26, 2024

Other immunities and privileges, however, such as qualified quasi- judicial immunity and governmental immunity, have been held not to impli- cate a court’s subject matter jurisdiction and, thus, more appropriately … immunity.’’ The court concluded that the ‘‘better result is the protection of absolute immunity.’’ Id.

Connolly v. Stone

1 La.App. 5 Cir. 929 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jan 15, 2002

The court in Fama addressed the issue of qualified immunity of communications made by employers about an employee, and held that the protection afforded an employer by the defense of qualified privilege may be raised in a … Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, defines the term “testify” to mean, “to make a solemn declaration, under oath or affirmation, in a judicial inquiry, for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact.”

N.M. State Land Off. v. Siddens & Dodson, LLP

New Mexico Court of Appeals · Jun 12, 2025

“A movant establishes a prima facie case 15 when the motion is supported by such evidence as is sufficient in law to raise a 16 presumption of fact or establish the fact in question unless rebutted.” Id. … The State of New Mexico has had prior knowledge of this 2 potential and did nothing about it. 3 Siddens agreed as well with the SLO’s description of the tort claim notice as having 4 communicated a “clearly stated

Bates Associates, LLC v. 132 Associates, LLC

290 Mich. App. 52 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 14, 2010

Further, in response to the tribe’s argument that the form contract designed for private parties without immunity could not have established a valid waiver of its tribal immunity, the Court determined that the contract was … The nonmoving party must present more than mere allegations to establish a genuine issue of material fact for resolution at trial. Id. at 31 .

Sanchez v. CANEZARO

11 So. 3d 1246 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jun 19, 2009

The evidence clearly shows that Chief Gueho neither witnessed Boyd Sanchez operating the bike on the day of the accident nor did he even know that Boyd was on a bicycle that day. … Moreover, the evidence in the record supports a finding that Chief Gueho and the Village of Fordoche qualify for the statutory immunity afforded by La. R.S. 9:2798.1. Mr.