Case law

FV-I, Inc., In Trust for Morgan Stanley Mtge. Capital Holdings, L.L.C. v. Townsend-Young

2020 Ohio 5184 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 5, 2020

The Youngs cannot overcome the doctrine of qualified immunity unless they are able to demonstrate privity with the firm’s client or were able to show that the firm and lawyer acted with malice. Solomon v. … Based on the sparse evidence submitted in response to appellees’ motion for summary judgment, the Youngs are unable to overcome application of qualified immunity.

Old Republic Ins. Co. v. Whitworth

442 So. 2d 1078 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 20, 1983

Section 440.11(2) provides exceptions to the immunity granted in the case of certain willful assaults [physical aggression] and automobile accidents. … It would appear that the immunity granted under the statute was not intended to cover instances where a carrier intentionally harms the employee.

Darling v. State

81 So. 3d 574 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 29, 2012

“Evidence is inextricably intertwined if the evidence is necessary to (1) adequately describe the deed, (2) provide an intelligent account of the crime(s) charged, (3) establish the entire context out of which the charged … State, 74 So.3d 521 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (holding that possession of a firearm by a convicted felon qualifies as an unlawful activity within the “stand your ground” law).

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.

Recchia v. Turner

197 Mich. App. 432 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 8, 1992

Plaintiff Chiara Recchia appeals as of right from an order of the Macomb Circuit Court granting defendants’ motion for summary disposition based on governmental immunity, MCR 2.116(C)(7). We reverse. … And there is no support that we can find that would prohibit including the front-end loader within the definition of motor vehicle just because it also qualifies as a piece of "special mobile equipment.”

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.

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

Stablein v. Schuster

183 Mich. App. 477 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 8, 1990

The immunity is a qualified one, but defendant has met the qualifications that the report must be fair and true. … A trial court’s finding that a plaintiff’s claim is not frivolous is governed by the clearly erroneous standard. DeWald v Isola, 180 Mich App 129, 134 ; 446 NW2d 620 (1989).

Theron Ivey Davis, Jr. v. Effingham County Board of Commissioners

Court of Appeals of Georgia · Jul 1, 2014

The doctrine of official immunity, also known as qualified immunity, offers public officers and employees limited protection from suit in their personal capacity. … Qualified immunity protects individual public agents from personal liability for discretionary actions taken within the scope of their official authority, and done without wilfulness, malice, or corruption

Midland States Life Insurance v. Cardillo

59 Mass. App. Ct. 531 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Oct 9, 2003

Sovereign immunity. The Lottery’s first defense to Midland’s action rested on sovereign immunity. … It has long been established that “the Commonwealth cannot be impleaded in its own courts except by its own consent, clearly manifested by act of the Legislature,” Nash v.

Blue Harvest, Inc. v. Department of Transportation

288 Mich. App. 267 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 29, 2010

Ross clearly indicates that exceptions to sovereign immunity must be granted by the Legislature. … However, plaintiffs’ injury clearly is merely of a different degree than that suffered by the public at large and therefore is not actionable. Spiek, 456 Mich at 350 .

Kobza v. Kutac

109 S.W.3d 89 · Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · May 30, 2003

Clearly, establishing rapport with students enhances the learning environment, one of the objectives for which a teacher is employed. Although Ms. … Clearly, Ms. Kobza used poor judgment and the joke backfired. However, there is not a prescription or definition of exactly what a teacher must do to establish rapport with a student.

Geneke Antonio Lyons v. Trooper Jason Henderson, the Texas Department of Public Safety, and the State of Texas

Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo) · May 19, 2008

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

KARISHA UPSHAW v. COLUMBUS CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT

Court of Appeals of Georgia · Oct 19, 2023

First, the state court found that the doctrine of qualified immunity barred Plaintiffs’ claims against Vardman and Boren in their individual capacities. … Accordingly, “[a] waiver of sovereign immunity must be established by the party seeking to benefit from that waiver.” McCobb v. Clayton County, 309 Ga.

Dunkle v. Middleburg Municipal Authority

842 A.2d 477 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 10, 2004

To qualify for an exception under the Tort Claims Act, a plaintiff is required to prove that (1) the damages would be recoverable under common law or statute against a person unprotected by governmental immunity, and (2) … Summary judgment is properly granted where there is no genuine issue of material *481 fact as to a necessary element of a cause of action and the moving party has clearly established entitlement to judgment as a matter of

Brayden Grimsley v. Phillip Burnett, Jr., in His Individual Capacity and Official Capacity as Commissioner of the Kentucky State Police

Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Dec 19, 2025

Most obviously, the statute reflects the vernacular of qualified official immunity and, by extension, provides a source of the very guidance Appellant claims the statute lacks. See Yanero v. … So, in addition to the guidance provided by qualified official immunity jurisprudence, commissioners and others can access the CALGA jurisprudence. See, e.g., Richardson v. Louisville/Jefferson Cnty.

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.

Keturah Hall v. Antwan Acker

Court of Appeals of Georgia · Mar 13, 2023

Because the policy clearly stated that “[o]fficers will flush the eyes and face of the affected subject with clean water,” the policy did not leave any room for thought or discretion. … The doctrine of official immunity, also known as qualified immunity, affords limited protection to public officers and employees for discretionary actions taken within the scope of their official authority,

Holly v. Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund

29 Md. App. 498 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 31, 1975

.” *503 The previously quoted language in Maddy, supra, clearly demonstrates that the statute meets this test and is valid. … The trial judge concluded from the evidence that “* * * the facts in this case are not sufficient to establish that there was, in fact, emancipation.”