Case law

W.S.K. v. M.H.S.B.

922 N.E.2d 671 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 10, 2010

W.S.K. clearly established the first element-he is African-American. The second element-W.S.K.'s qualifications-was the subject of discussion at oral argument. … Therefore, W.S.K. *689 did not establish that he was qualified for privileges at M.H.S.B.

Dallas Area Rapid Transit v. Oncor Electric Delivery Co.

331 S.W.3d 91 · Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas) · Dec 22, 2010

In contrast, immunity from suit bars an action against the state unless the state expressly waives immunity or consents to the suit. Id. The party bringing suit must establish the state’s consent or waiver. Id. … The source of the PUC’s power is clearly stated in the Public Utility Regulatory Act (“PURA”), which states in part, “The purpose of this subtitle is to establish a comprehensive and adequate regulatory system for electric

Eli Edwards v. State

Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo) · Jun 21, 2007

By their Plea, the defendants alleged that sovereign immunity barred Lyons’s suit against the State and TDPS and that Henderson was protected by both qualified and official immunity. … Thus, for Lyons to maintain suit against any of the defendants named in his suit, he must state facts in his pleading that establish that the defendants are either outside of the protection of sovereign immunity or that the

Sandholm v. Kuecker

405 Ill. App. 3d 835 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 18, 2010

Acts or statements made during legislative, judicial, or quasi-judicial proceedings are already protected by absolute or qualified privileges, including the protection of the right to petition the government as established … Pennington upheld the same antitrust immunity doctrine where coal companies and unions persuaded the Labor Department to establish minimum wages for employees of contractors, which frustrated the non-unionized companies’

Walker v. Wake Cty. Sheriff's Dep't

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 2, 2022

¶ 14 Sheriff Defendants have failed to establish that, based solely on the pleadings and as a matter of law, qualified privilege precludes liability for Curry’s email to Crump. … “[A] defendant seeking to establish public official immunity must demonstrate that all three of [these] factors are present.” McCullers v. Lewis, 265 N.C.

Canutillo Independent School District v. Olivares

917 S.W.2d 494 · Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso) · Mar 27, 1996

The Supreme Court, noting that the statute requires an election between an action for a violation of the Anti-Retaliation Law and an action for the Whistleblower Act, reasoned: Since immunity has clearly been waived for the … The amount of damages is clearly supported in the record.

A.D.A., as next friend of L.R.A., a minor child under the age of 18 v. Johnson & Johnson; A.N.C., as next friend of J.J.S., a minor child under the age of 18 v. Johnson & Johnson; Travis B., next friend and guardian of minor child Z.D.B. v. McKesson Corporation; and Trey Sparks v. Johnson & Johnson, Inc.

Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia · Dec 27, 2024

of clearly established law and the information possessed by the defendant at the time of the allegedly wrongful conduct.” … The SCAWV has established the analysis to determine whether qualified immunity applies.

In re Edward T.

Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 15, 2003

In response, the State argues that the trial court erred in qualifying Dr. Zun as an expert witness. Dr. … Zun should not have been qualified as an expert witness in pediatric medicine.

Huffman v. Davis

571 So. 2d 1371 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 14, 1990

If Huffman was indeed voluntarily providing legal assistance to non-inmates, then clearly he was not exercising a constitutional right, and his 1983 action must fail. … Appellee additionally claims that even if Huffman was deprived of a constitutional right, appellee was acting in good faith to fulfill his responsibilities; thus he was entitled to the defense of qualified immunity.

Mueller v. the Florida Bar

390 So. 2d 449 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Nov 19, 1980

The question is whether The Florida Bar and its duly authorized agents enjoy immunity from liability for defamation or malicious prosecution by virtue of an absolute privilege. The answer is a qualified yes. … It was clearly within the scope of the authority of staff counsel to advise not only appellant's clients but also his prospective clients of appellant's disbarment. The latter category consists of the public at large.

Montessori Regional Charter School v. Millcreek Township School District

55 A.3d 196 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 26, 2012

The present case establishes a new rule of law regarding the CAB’s jurisdiction over charter amendment disputes. … This is an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed by any other court decisions.

Wissel v. Ohio High School Athletic Assn.

78 Ohio App. 3d 529 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 4, 1992

Ill OHSAA argued below and continues to insist on appeal that it is immune from tort liability under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. … Clearly, the sins charged are of omission, not commission.

Lámar v. Thomas Fowler Trucking, Inc.

956 So. 2d 911 · Court of Appeals of Mississippi · Apr 4, 2006

This is the principle of "up-the-line immunity," and it has become well established in Mississippi law. ¶ 21. In Mosley v. … Such an outcome is clearly contrary to the express language of section 71-3-9.

Giske v. State

191 A.D.2d 675 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 29, 1993

The testimony presented at trial established that the State had been aware, at least since 1982, that similar accidents had occurred at the site of the decedent’s accident. … Although the State is accorded a qualified immunity from liability arising out of highway planning decisions, the doctrine of qualified immunity does not shield the State from liability where, as here, it has failed to demonstrate

People v. Parker

70 A.D.2d 387 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 30, 1979

We note to begin with that the record leaves something to be desired as to establishing the basic facts as to the license. … In a memorandum of law, however, defendant’s attorney qualifies this statement by saying that defendant possessed an on-premises license and a target license.

McNeill v. Durham County ABC Board

87 N.C. App. 50 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 1, 1987

Radtke, a neurologist who treated plaintiff, was not qualified to give an opinion as to the angle and force of the blow to plaintiffs head is likewise meritless. Dr. … likewise waive their immunity by purchasing such insurance.

Texas Department of Aging & Disability Services v. Beltran

350 S.W.3d 410 · Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso) · Aug 31, 2011

In its plea, the Department asserted that it was protected by sovereign immunity because the “Legislature has not clearly and unambiguously waived sovereign immunity for [the Anti-Retaliation Law]” as required after the Legislature … As a result, because the Political Subdivisions Law no longer clearly and unambiguously waives governmental immunity, the Court dismissed Ms. Norman’s retaliatory-discharge claim. Id.

William C Reichenbach Co. v. State

94 Mich. App. 323 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 18, 1979

The independence of such universities will not be permitted to "thwart the clearly established public policy” in this state. Id., at 139. … We conclude that the payment bonding statute does not represent "a clearly established public policy” in this state.

Henning v. Rounds

142 N.M. 803 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Aug 29, 2007

Under the TCA, with specified exceptions, public employees “are immune for any actions they performed while in the scope of their duties.” Seeds v. … We hold as a matter of law that Defendants’ actions were within the scope of their duties, and that the immunity provisions of the TCA are applicable. {22} “Our case law establishes that a public employee may be within the

Strata v. Williams

94 La.App. 4 Cir. 1150 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Nov 30, 1994

The party challenging the constitutionality of a statute bears the burden of proving clearly that the legislation is invalid or unconstitutional. … The opponent must establish clearly and convincingly that the constitutional aim was to deny to the legislature the power to enact the legislation. Id. at 388 . (Emphasis added).