Case law

Donna Zink, et ux v. City of Mesa

Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 20, 2024

However, we conclude that the right to video record a public meeting was not clearly established in 2003 and therefore Mayor Ross is entitled to qualified immunity. … She maintains that in 2003 her right to video record city council meetings was clearly established and therefore Mayor Ross is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Swoope v. Osagie

2016 Ohio 8046 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 8, 2016

. {¶52} If a claimant establishes a prima facie case of defamation, a defendant may then invoke a conditional or qualified privilege. A & B-Abell Elevator Co. v. Columbus/Cent. Ohio Bldg. & Constr. … The “essential elements” necessary to establish a common-law qualified privilege are “‘good faith, an interest to be upheld, a statement limited in its scope to this purpose, a proper occasion, and publication in a proper

Deutsche Bank AG v. Vik

214 Conn. App. 487 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Aug 23, 2022

from exercis- ing their rights under the [Workers’ Compensation] [A]ct, a situation the legislature clearly intended to pre- vent when it enacted § 31-290a.’’ … The court qualified its hold- ing by stating that ‘‘[t]his does not mean, however, that a defendant enjoys absolute immunity from all CUTPA claims under the litigation privilege, even those prem- ised on a violation of CUIPA

Lamartiniere v. Allstate Insurance Co.

597 So. 2d 1158 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Apr 10, 1992

If the defendant shows that the state constitutional right alleged to have been violated was not clearly established, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. … Under the above circumstances, the constitutional right in question was not clearly *1163 established and Wilkerson had qualified immunity.

Rocco v. NJ Transit Rail Operations

330 N.J. Super. 320 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 25, 2000

Where a public entity is unable to perfect design immunity as a result of failure to establish proper approvals, liability may attach if there is sufficient evidence to show that the design defect represents a dangerous condition … The circumstances in this case simply do not qualify.

State, Department of Transportation v. Figg Bridge Engineers, Inc.

79 A.3d 259 · Superior Court of Delaware · Aug 13, 2013

Much latér, investigation established that AMEC’s 2005 report contained significant inaccuracies. … The Department asserts the attorney/client privilege for one document and work product immunity for two documents.

Williams v. Horton

175 Mich. App. 25 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 21, 1989

, stated: [W]e believe that conduct of the state defendants in this case was discretionary-decisional, thereby qualifying for immunity under Ross . … Clearly, the placement of Williams was not, as may be inferred from certain statements of the trial court, limited merely to fulfilling, by way of routine and unthinking obedience, the order to "place the child” in this case

Ligon v. Middletown Area School District

136 Pa. Commw. 566 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 11, 1990

The trial court sustained Ligon’s objection because the response called for hearsay not qualifying under the admission exception. … Sidds’ statements fail to qualify under this exception. Also, Mr.

Eugene Gartman and Adrienne Gartman v. Southern Tactical Range, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company; And BITN, LLC, A

District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 23, 2025

And the Range fails to point to anything that would qualify as such. … In upholding the statute, the Florida Supreme Court concluded that the courts must heed the Legislature’s public policy declarations unless they are “clearly shown to have been promulgated without power to do so.”

Aliasgarian v. State of New York

2021 NY Slip Op 06489 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 19, 2021

Initially, we agree with claimant that the State is not entitled to qualified immunity because, in view of the New York State Department of Transportation's Policy on Highway Lighting, which was admitted into evidence, there … We nevertheless conclude, however, that the State is entitled to dismissal of the claim under the ordinary rules of negligence, which are applicable in the absence of a qualified immunity defense ( see Brown v State of New

Wright v. Gaston County

205 N.C. App. 600 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 20, 2010

[C]ounties have governmental immunity when engaging in activ *604 ity that is clearly governmental in nature and not proprietary. … Seacrest, supra, our Supreme Court set forth the test employed where a complaint does not clearly specify whether the defendants are being sued in their individual or official capacities: where the complaint does not clearly

Dearth v. Columbus

2019 Ohio 556 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 14, 2019

in subsection (2) applies to establish the City's liability. … (City's Brief at 15, quoting R.C. 2744.03(A)(5).) {¶ 44} The City asserts that the Dearths, in contending that the City does not qualify for reinstatement of immunity under R.C. 2744.03(A)(5) because the decisions

The Royal Oak Concerned Citizens Ass'n v. Brunswick Cnty.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 1, 2014

Qualified Personnel, Inc., 294 N.C. 200, 208, 240 S.E.2d 338, 343 (1978). … “The burden is on the appellant to establish that a substantial right will be affected unless he is allowed immediate appeal from an interlocutory order.” Embler v. Embler, 143 N.C.

in the Interest of A.J.E., a Child

372 S.W.3d 696 · Texas Court of Appeals, 11th District (Eastland) · May 10, 2012

“A trial court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily or unreasonably, or when it clearly fails to correctly analyze or apply the law.” Id. … The letter establishes that immunization of the child is not medically contraindicated and that it complies with the recommendations of the Centers for Disease Control and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Mark Henry Benavides v. State

Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · Oct 30, 2019

Pierce was qualified to express an opinion as to the characteristics of sexual assault victims. … The burden rests upon the party who challenges the statute to establish its unconstitutionality. Rodriguez, 93 S.W.3d at 69.

Michael W. Elliott v. James A. West & Ross Reporting Services, Inc.

Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Mar 31, 2011

Instead, the motion argues only traditional grounds for summary judgment: qualified immunity and res judicata/impermissible collateral attack. … The evidence therefore supports the trial court’s summary judgment on Elliott’s claims against West on the basis of qualified immunity.

Adams v. Peck

43 Md. App. 168 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 13, 1979

An absolute privilege is distinguished from a qualified privilege in that the former provides immunity regardless of the purpose or motive of the defendant, or thé reasonableness of his conduct, while the latter is conditioned … Peck was clearly of that nature, and is therefore protected by the “absolute” privilege set forth in Kennedy v. Cannon, supra.

Early County v. Fincher

184 Ga. App. 47 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Jul 13, 1987

While the scope of the county’s liability coverage is clearly relevant to this case in the sense that it controls the extent of the county’s waiver of sovereign immunity, it is not a matter which can be considered of any … App. 274 (2) ( 279 SE2d 723 ) (1981), such application is clearly inappropriate since, with certain specific exceptions such as the one involved in this case, the sovereign immunity enjoyed by a county extends to discretionary

Mona Word v. Knox County, Tennessee

Court of Appeals of Tennessee · Feb 20, 2020

Foster Arnett is entitled to qualified immunity. By extension, under T.C.A. § 29-20-206, Knox County is entitled to qualified immunity — because Foster Arnett is immune. … clearly established constitutional or statutory rights a reasonable person would have known about.

Doe v. New Haven

214 Conn. App. 553 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Aug 23, 2022

Generally, a municipal employee is liable for the misperformance of ministerial acts, but has a qualified immunity in the performance of [discretionary] govern- mental acts. . . . … Her statements, in context, are not the type of specific and clearly stated oral directives that our cases have recognized as suffi- cient to establish a ministerial duty. See Strycharz v.