Case law

Hilburn v. State

226 S.W.3d 859 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jun 12, 2007

First, Movant expressly claims that the United States and Missouri Constitutions give him immunity from prosecution except upon Indictment. Second, Movant implicitly claims that such immunity is not waivea-ble. … The 1945 Constitution clearly authorizes proceed *862 ing by information. Mo. Const, art I, Section 17.

Minor v. Barwick

264 Ga. App. 327 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Nov 25, 2003

Both Minor and Carter argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … The test for determining whether the official is entitled to immunity is the objective reasonableness of the official’s conduct in light of legal rules which were clearly established at the time the action was taken.

Geoffrey Zimmerman, M.D. v. Wendy Gonzalez Anaya, Individually and A/N/F of Christopher Gabriel Hernandez, and Jose Hernandez, Individually

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

Zimmerman’s contention rests on the assumption that Baylor qualifies as a governmental unit under section 312.007 of the Texas Health and Safety Code, making him an employee of a state agency for purposes of immunity under … A defendant moving for summary judgment based on an affirmative defense, such as immunity, must conclusively establish each element of that defense. Sci. Spectrum, Inc. , 941 S.W.2d at 911 .

Texas Health and Human Services Commission and the Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services v. Jose P. Baldonado

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Apr 30, 2015

Specifically, appellants maintain that Baldonado did not show he was qualified for the Clerk II position, because his employment application fails to demonstrate 7 If a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case … As to the second element, “[a]n employer may establish job requirements, and rely on them in arguing that a prima facie case is not established because the employee is not ‘qualified.’” Johnson v.

City of San Antonio v. Hays St. Bridge Restoration Grp.

551 S.W.3d 755 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Mar 1, 2017

The Texas Supreme Court has stated that in determining whether the Legislature has clearly and unambiguously waived immunity, courts should: (1) determine whether the statute that allegedly waives immunity does so beyond … Resolving any ambiguities in favor of immunity, we conclude that by not permitting the recovery of specific performance, the Act does not clearly or unambiguously waive immunity from suit for breach of contract claims seeking

Durand v. United Dollar Store of Hammond, Inc.

242 So. 2d 635 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Dec 21, 1970

We believe that the record further clearly indicates that Mr. Brock, after having observed the behavior of Mrs. Simmons, immediately started after her. … In reaching this conclusion the appellate court expressly pretermitted the question of whether the defendant was immune from liability by virtue of Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 215: "We agree with the trial

Robstown Independent School District v. Jesus Alejandro

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Feb 20, 2025

Only the sovereign’s own consent could qualify the absolute character of that immunity.”). … Local Government Code Chapter 271 Chapter 271, subchapter I of the Texas Local Government Code clearly and unambiguously waives sovereign immunity for certain contract claims against local governmental entities.

United Arab Shipping Co. v. Al-Hashim

176 A.D.2d 569 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 15, 1991

Corporation Law § 1312 (a) is inapplicable because the plaintiff’s activities in New York were merely incidental to international and interstate commerce is belied by the documentary evidence submitted by the defendants establishing … Notwithstanding plaintiff’s claims to the contrary, plaintiff does not qualify as a "foreign state” entitled to sovereign immunity within the definition of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 ( 28 USC § 1603 [a])

Massengill v. Yuma County

9 Ariz. App. 281 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · May 6, 1969

The three complaints contain the same verbiage: “(1) At all times herein mentioned Travis Yancey was the duly elected, qualified and acting Sheriff of Yuma *283 County, Arizona, and Earl W. … Keenum was on duty in the parking lot used by patrons of the establishments known as Paradise Harbor and Sports Valley.

Toney C. McKuhen v. Transformhealthrx, Inc.

338 Ga. App. 354 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Jul 15, 2016

In this case, the trial court concluded that these defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. … “Government officials, including [jail personnel], are entitled to immunity from personal liability under 42 USC § 1983 if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida v. Lewis Tein, P.L.

227 So. 3d 656 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Aug 9, 2017

Because neither exception to tribal immunity has been established in this case, we reverse the trial court’s denial of the Miccosukee Tribe’s motion to dismiss. … P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(xi) (“Appeals to the district courts of appeal of non-final orders are limited to those that . . . determine . . . that, as a matter of law, a party is not entitled to qualified immunity.”).3 “The issue

Harris County v. Rondalina Beatty

Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Jul 16, 2024

To establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination, a plaintiff must show that she (1) has a “disability” or was regarded as disabled, (2) is “qualified” for the job, and (3) suffered an adverse employment decision … As Beatty points out, she “was clearly eligible for rehire as her application would not have made it to that level if she were not.”

Leatham v. Yearick

Court of Appeals of Arizona · Feb 3, 2025

right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” … As we held in Quinn, the issues underlying Arizona common law qualified immunity and federal qualified immunity substantially overlap because both analyze whether there was a clearly established right, whether a right was

State v. Herrera

32 Or. App. 397 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 7, 1978

However, if the testimony offered by defendant is not sufficient to establish the defense of mental disease or defect, it is permissible to omit such an instruction. State v. … The statute clearly requires that defendant’s lack of capacity to conform be the result of a mental disease or defect. ORS 161.295. *407 State v.

Commonwealth v. Scouton

20 Pa. Super. 503 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 10, 1902

These essentials of the offense charged in the indictment being established, a prima facie case for the commonwealth was made out. … The learned judge committed no error in adverting to this qualifying principle in his answer to the defendant’s fourth point. 8.

Cohen-Ager, Inc. v. State

12 Fla. L. Weekly 836 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Mar 24, 1987

Here the record reveals no similar facts that would qualify as a resulting trust. … Where a political subdivision of the state is immune from taxation the non-immune party to the transaction is still liable for the tax. See Rule 12B-402(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code.

Falk v. Martel

210 Ill. App. 3d 557 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 15, 1991

The case was removed to Federal court, and the defendant was granted summary judgment on count Y on the basis of qualified immunity. The remainder of the complaint was remanded back to the circuit court. … App. 2d 239 , 246 N.E.2d 24 ), nor was an employee of the Department of Transportation liable for failure to establish a no-passing zone where one was called for by State standards (Mora v.

Wanless v. Tatum

244 Ga. App. 882 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Jul 10, 2000

We find that this policy established a ministerial duty on the department’s employees to record and investigate complaints: “While the act of establishing a policy in the first place is discretionary, the acts of following … established policies of (writing up the complaint and investigating it) are ministerial.”

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 .

Murphy v. Johns-Manville Products Corp.

45 N.J. Super. 478 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 18, 1957

As to qualified privilege, the evidence overwhelmingly establishes the justification for the ruling of the trial court that there was no genuine factual issue. … See also, Evans, "Legal Immunity for Defamation," 24 Minn. L. Rev. 607 , 610 (1940).