Case law

In re the Second Additional Grand Jury

10 A.D.2d 425 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 9, 1960

Y. 251, 259 , supra), and in order to establish willful misconduct it is necessary to show that the witness or prospective defendant had knowledge of the fact that immunity had been conferred upon him. … There is good authority for the proposition that before a witness or prospective defendant may be adjudged in criminal contempt, it must be established that he was advised *437 of the fact that full immunity had actually

Board of Education v. Marks-Sloan

202 Md. App. 59 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 28, 2011

Danielczyk, 400 Md. 98 , 131 n. 11, 928 A.2d 795 (2007) (stating that “an action based on the tortious conduct of a State employee who qualifies as State personnel is against the State, not the employee”). … “It is well established that the Maryland Workers’ Compensation Act does not exclude tort actions between co-employees, but it does exclude an action in tort by an employee against his employer.” Hill v.

U.S. Bank v. Lindsey

397 Ill. App. 3d 437 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 7, 2009

Atkinson testified that the Carmichael truck was subject to federal regulations that required Lindsey to be qualified and trained to possess a commercial driver’s license (CDL). … Next of Kin and Establishment of Parentage Carmichael contends that plaintiff failed as a matter of law to establish that decedent was the biological father of the children who claimed to be beneficiaries of the estate.

Salyers v. Burkhart

47 Ohio App. 2d 90 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 19, 1974

That case did deal with the question of governmental immunity as it affects individual office holders which the court determines have a qualified immunity in an action under 42 U. S. … The complaint in the present case, therefore, does not on its face affirmatively establish that no set of facts warranting recovery can be ultimately established by the evidence.

In Re Cs

214 S.W.3d 465 · Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Jan 11, 2006

Based on the adoption subsidy, the Stewarts do not meet the financial requirements to qualify as an adoptive placement for the children. … However, all of the cases cited by the ad litem rely on the following unique provision of the Texas Constitution: "it shall be the duty of the Legislature of the State to establish and make suitable provision for the support

Texas Southern University v. Charles David Carter

Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Aug 22, 2002

The supreme court held that the statutory prerequisite of establishing "equal treaty rights" was not a jurisdictional requirement. Id. at 76 . … Clearly, the "alleged violation" in this case was Carter's termination on August 31, 1998, which he became aware of by letter dated July 31, 1998.

Dept. of Pubic Health v. Estrada

Connecticut Appellate Court · Mar 15, 2022

‘‘The principle that the state cannot be sued without its consent, or sovereign immunity, is well established under our case law. . . . … This is clearly reporting a violation of law under the jurisdiction of the agency; and falls squarely within a qualifying disclo- sure.’’ (Footnote added; footnotes omitted.)

Stephen Hartman v. Anthony Barker

Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont) · Feb 20, 2020

[O]ur cases clearly indicate that immunity analysis rests on functional categories, not on the status of the defendant. … Hartman argues that absolute prosecutorial immunity is “qualified immunity” and does not apply to Maness, Shettle, and Rugg, because “[t]here is no immunity for actions occurring before there is probable cause for an arrest

Haery v. Spaeth

2025 Ohio 5801 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 30, 2025

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has explained that "It is well established that judges and other court officers enjoy absolute immunity from suit on claims arising out of the performance of judicial … out by Chapter 2744 of the Revised Code, which "establishes a three-tiered analysis for determining whether a political subdivision is immune from tort liability."

Floyd Rodney Burns v. State of Tennessee

Court of Appeals of Tennessee · Nov 26, 2019

While the common law doctrine of absolute immunity remains the majority rule, we note that other states afford executive officials only a qualified privilege for statements made in the course of their official … Sack,] Sack [on Defamation: Libel, Slander and Related Problems] § 8.2.5 [(4th ed. 2012)] (“A few states deny absolute immunity to public officials altogether and grant a qualified privilege for statements

Veeneman v. State of Michigan

143 Mich. App. 694 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 19, 1985

to the governmental immunity act.” … The activity is clearly not proprietary in nature and does not come within any of the statutory exceptions to governmental immunity.

Mullins v. Vakili

506 A.2d 192 · Superior Court of Delaware · Feb 21, 1986

In Hickman, supra, the Supreme Court attempted to resolve the controversy by recognizing a qualified immunity for discovery for a lawyer’s work product, making such material discoverable only on a substantial showing of “ … Contrary to the view of the plaintiffs, the qualified work product immunity of Rule 26(b)(3) extends not only to non-attorneys, but also to material prepared before litigation commences. Id.

Domestic Linen Supply & Laundry Co. v. Stone

111 Mich. App. 827 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 16, 1981

Similarly, in Raymond, supra, a budget director reporting to a state administrative board was held to have only a qualified immunity. … Each of the remaining business torts alleged to have been committed requires extraneous proof which plaintiff may, or may not, be able to establish.

Ashby v. City of Louisville

841 S.W.2d 184 · Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Nov 20, 1992

If the officer is entitled to only a limited or qualified immunity, the officer is not liable if he acts in good faith. … Appellants alleged in part that appellees failed to establish and to maintain records pertaining to the issuance and current status of domestic violence court orders, failed to promptly report to the Cabinet for Human Resources

420 Caregivers v. City of LA

California Court of Appeal · Sep 25, 2013

The individuals to whom this immunity applies are expanded beyond the patients and primary caregivers protected by the predecessor CUA: the MMPA grants immunity to (1) qualified patients, persons with identification cards … The Legislature‟s specific inclusion of “establishment” in both the amendment to Health and Safety Code section 11362.83 and new section 11362.768 is not insignificant: the plain meaning of “establishment” clearly expresses

Beck v. Claymont School District

407 A.2d 226 · Superior Court of Delaware · Aug 17, 1979

Entities established by municipal or home rule charters spring from a common source but, as previously noted, do not share sovereign immunity. … Program established by 10 Del.C.

Florida Department of Health, Office of Medical Marijuana Use, Courtney Coppola, in her official capacity as Director of the Office of Medical Marijuana Use v. Florigrown, LLC, a Florida limited liability company and Voice of Freedom, Inc., d/b/a Florigrown

District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 9, 2019

demonstrate [] that such registration would result in unsafe use of medical marijuana by qualifying patients. … The Medical Marijuana Amendment 2 provides immunity from criminal sanctions and civil liability for the medical use of marijuana, but only when it is used “in compliance with [the Amendment].” Art. X, § 29(a), Fla.

Zyskowski v. Habelmann

150 Mich. App. 230 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 7, 1986

However, a statutory exception to immunity provides that an agency is not immune from liability for improperly maintained roads under the agency’s jurisdiction. … Since the city in the present case clearly did not have jurisdiction over Outer Drive, it is immune from tort liability for any alleged failure to properly maintain the road or lighting, and the trial court appropriately

Arkin, Simon & Simon Partnership v. Rockaway Crossing, LLC

2025 NY Slip Op 03990 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 2, 2025

"In order for evidence submitted in support of a CPLR 3211(a)(1) motion to qualify as documentary evidence, it must be unambiguous, authentic, and undeniable" ( Bronxville Scout Comm. v County of Westchester , 229 AD3d at … Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the State established as a matter of law that lot 782 was immune from adverse possession ( see Bronxville Scout Comm. v County of Westchester , 229 AD3d at 755; Filomio Truck Sales,

Clarage v. Kuzma

Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 30, 2003

We find that, under the facts alleged, the qualified privilege does not apply. … We find that the qualified privilege does not apply. Defendant Scully also claims that his actions are protected by sections 2-206 and 2-201 of the Tort Immunity Act.