Case law

Ghaster v. Rocky River

2013 Ohio 5587 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 19, 2013

available at common law or established by the Revised Code. … While performing these functions, [the prosecutor] is entitled to only a qualified immunity.”

Baldassano v. High Point Insurance

396 N.J. Super. 448 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 8, 2007

Plaintiff first contends that defendant failed to comply with the statutory requirements to qualify for immunity under N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9 because (1) the agent, not the insured, selected the level of UIM coverage on the coverage … Awany, 205 F.Supp.2d 279, 285-86 (D.N.J.2002) (holding that the requirements of N.J.S.A. 39:6A-23 “are preconditions to qualifying for immunity under N.J.S.A 17:28-1.9”).

Neuburger v. State ex rel. State Department of Highways

162 So. 2d 183 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Mar 2, 1964

Whether the person so authorized qualifies as “tutor” or “administrator” should make no difference. … A motorist, travelling by night, is not required to guard against striking an unexpected or unusual obstruction *186 which he could not anticipate would be encountered on the highway, unless the same were clearly marked,

Harrison v. Veolia Water Indianapolis, LLC

929 N.E.2d 247 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 29, 2010

Although the issue here is not, strictly speaking, one of sovereign immunity, we believe it is necessary to review the history of sovereign immunity in Indiana and the adoption of ITCA. 3 Sovereign immunity originated in … Despite the difficulty of defining what constituted a "proprietary function" for which a municipality could be held liable if it had been performed negligently, there were numerous cases clearly establishing that a municipality's

Board of Education v. Hueber

90 A.D.2d 685 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 29, 1982

Inasmuch as his opinion was properly grounded on the facts in evidence and based upon his professional expertise in the field, this testimony with other evidence in the case was enough to establish a prima facie case for … noting that expert opinion evidence was required in an action of this type (see 530 East 89 Corp. v Unger, 54 AD2d 848 , affd 43 NY2d 776 ), urge that the evidence was not legally sufficient because the witness subsequently qualified

Sylvan Heights Realty Partners, L.L.C. v. LaGrotta

940 A.2d 585 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 2, 2008

Such is clearly not the case here. … Such a clearly definable, controlling issue is not present here.

State v. Fernandez

141 So. 3d 1211 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · May 21, 2014

“While some pretrial evidentiary rulings may qualify for certiorari, it must be remembered that the extraordinary writ is reserved for those situations where ‘there has been a violation of a clearly established principle … However, the defendants charged in the related cases still qualify as witnesses.

Hall v. King

254 So. 2d 223 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Nov 11, 1971

Notwithstanding the establishment of his residency in Georgia, petitioner contends that he has established what he terms to be a secondary residence in Florida due to his many and close contacts with the State. … This point is clearly made in footnote 21 of the decision found at 394 U.S. 638 , 89 S.Ct. at 1333 as follows: “21.

Joyce v. State

152 A.D.2d 306 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 14, 1989

Following a trial, the Court of Claims rendered judgment in favor of the State based upon the doctrine of qualified governmental immunity for errors and defects in a plan adopted for the construction of a public improvement … Claimant contends that the doctrine of qualified governmental immunity is limited to highways, streets, sidewalks and sewers, and should not be applied to the Plaza, and that the State is subject to the same principles of

The City of Lubbock, Texas v. J.P.M., Inc. D/B/A Taco Bell 036565

Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo) · May 19, 2026

A city is immune from suit for its torts committed in the performance of a governmental function unless the immunity has been clearly and expressly waived by the Legislature. Davis, 2018 Tex. App. … Courts have found a motor-driven backhoe qualifies as “motor- driven equipment” such that the limited exception to immunity applies. City of Monahans v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 656 S.W.3d 738, 748 (Tex. App.

International Paper Co. v. Broadhead

662 So. 2d 277 · Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · Jan 6, 1995

Hammermill Penn invested $107 million in Dallas County in order to qualify for the credit. … The objective of the statute would clearly be thwarted if IPCO is denied the right of its predecessor's statutory credit.

Dixon v. Superior Court

30 Cal. App. 4th 733 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 30, 1994

[ft] SRS is fully qualified to compete with other consultants in submitting proposals, and they should be expected to do so. … Therefore, SRS could not, as a matter of law, have established a probability of prevailing at trial because~even if it proved Dixon acted with malice, his statements are still entitled to absolute immunity. (Cf. Long v.

State v. Mitrani

19 So. 3d 1065 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Oct 2, 2009

Consequently, the trial court’s order violates clearly established legal principles that would cause substantial prejudice to the State. … Entitlement to the issuance of a writ depends on the State demonstrating (1) that the trial court's ruling violated a clearly established legal principle and (2) that the ruling results in material injustice. State v.

Walls v. State

670 So. 2d 382 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jan 31, 1996

Clearly, the district attorney's evaluation of the evidence and his decision to proceed with the prosecution in this case were in preparation for judicial proceedings and within his role as advocate for the state. … Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 424 , 96 S.Ct. 984, 992 , 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976), the Supreme Court stated: If a prosecutor had only a qualified immunity, the threat of § 1983 suits would undermine performance of his duties no less

Van Emrik v. Chemung County Department of Social Services

191 A.D.2d 143 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 8, 1993

In the Federal realm, governmental actors who engage in discretionary actions are qualifiedly immune from liability in *147 a suit based on 42 USC § 1983 if it can be established that their actions did not " 'violate clearly … Conversely, a review of Social Services Law § 419, which contains the State law immunity provisions, establishes that the relevant inquiry in determining immunity under State law for litigants such as defendants who did not

Fried, Admin. v. Friends of Breakthrough Schools

2020 Ohio 4215 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 27, 2020

“It is well established that under R.C. 2744.02, political subdivisions are immune from intentional torts.” Wingfield v. Cleveland, 8th Dist. … Our analysis is guided by the notion that EPrep was not required to establish that it is entitled to immunity; rather, Appellees were required to plead facts establishing than an exception to immunity applies.

Marshall v. Browning

310 Ga. App. 64 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · May 13, 2011

.” 5 Official or “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 … App. 159, 160 (2) ( 573 SE2d 417 ) (2002) (“courts must consider the issue of a government employee’s qualified immunity from liability as the threshold issue in a suit against the officer in his personal capacity”) (citation

Delmonico v. Traynor

50 So. 3d 4 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jun 16, 2010

Clearly, speaking to potential witnesses during the pendency of litigation is of "some relation to the proceeding." … The court determined that attorneys performing extra-judicial investigations would be protected by qualified immunity.

Perez v. State

41 S.W.3d 712 · Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Mar 8, 2001

The record reveals that the State granted Flores use immunity. … This offer was for transactional immunity, not use immunity, and required approval of the court. .See id. Because the prosecution failed to show the court’s approval, immunity was not established. See id.

Hill v. Schildmeyer

252 N.E.3d 561 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 28, 2024

fail to establish an exception to his immunity. {¶35} Under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6), government employees are immune from tort liability for actions that fall within the scope of their employment and official responsibilities … In other words, a motion for judgment on the pleadings based on immunity must be granted if “the pleadings, construed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, conclusively establish the affirmative defense” and the