Case law

Fisher v. Lauderdale County Board of Supervisors

7 So. 3d 968 · Court of Appeals of Mississippi · Mar 31, 2009

The circuit court determined that this statute established a minimum requirement for a culvert and any decision outside of the minimum requirement was a discretionary function. … “However, this qualified immunity only affords protection against suits arising out of the performance of discretionary duties.” Mohundro v.

Sean M. v. City of New York

20 A.D.3d 146 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 24, 2005

Plaintiffs fail to advance any ground to warrant excluding this case from the qualified immunity afforded by Social Services Law § 419. … Thus, we conclude that neither the City nor LWS has established a right to immunity in this matter. To the extent that Ross v City of New York ( 302 AD2d 232 [2003]) may be read to the contrary, we overrule it.

Texas Department of Health v. Rocha

102 S.W.3d 348 · Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Mar 27, 2003

On October 7, 1997, appellants filed a plea to the jurisdiction and special exceptions, asserting that sovereign immunity and qualified immunity barred all claims against TDH and the named TDH employees. … For the trial court to have jurisdiction, the plaintiff who sues the state under state law must establish a waiver of sovereign immunity by: (1) alleging legislative consent to such suit in his petition, either by reference

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 .

Picture Rocks Fire District v. Pima County

152 Ariz. 442 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Nov 18, 1986

“The rule is clearly established in Arizona that one member of a legislature which passes a law is not competent to testify regarding the intent of the legislature in passing that law.” Golder v. … They also contend that Chapter 278 grants special or exclusive privileges to the taxpayers who qualify for withdrawal from a fire district under the statute, to the exclusion of taxpayers who do not qualify due to either

City of Houston v. Jose Alberto Corrales

Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Mar 4, 2025

It is well-established that the Texas Tort Claims Act waives the City’s governmental immunity from suit and liability for personal-injury damages under these circumstances. … Any waiver must appear clearly and unambiguously in the statute. TEX. GOV’T CODE § 311.034; see also Rattray, 662 S.W.3d at 871 (stating that “precise scope” of waiver “must be clearly expressed”).

Barone v. County of Suffolk

85 A.D.3d 836 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 14, 2011

The County failed to establish, prima facie, that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the basis of qualified immunity (see Bresciani v County of Dutchess, N.Y., 62 AD3d 639, 640 [2009]; Appelbaum v County of … Also, contrary to the County’s contention, it failed to establish, as a matter of law, that its alleged negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident (see Ernest v Red Cr. Cent.

Allos v. Poway Unified Sch. Dist.

California Court of Appeal · Jul 7, 2025

The Act “ ‘establishes the basic rules that public entities are immune from [noncontractual] liability except as provided by statute (§ 815, subd. … None of these facts establish a qualifying disability within the meaning of FEHA.

Rossignol v. Silvernail

185 A.D.2d 497 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 16, 1992

Here, while the witnesses were not able to give a verbatim recitation of the slanderous quotations recited in the complaint, the language proved clearly embraced that alleged without material variation. … Nor do we find that the jury’s conclusion that defendants did not act in good faith in making the child abuse complaints so as to be entitled to the qualified privilege set forth in Social Services Law § 419 to be against

Lamolinara v. BARGER

30 Pa. Commw. 307 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 25, 1977

First, we do not read the term “fixing” to require the affirmative establishment or creation of rights, privileges, immunities, duties or obligations. … His removal from duty for whatever reason, valid or not, whether by dismissal or suspension, clearly affected that property right.

Darla Lackey v. Lone Star College System

Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont) · Oct 20, 2016

LSCS argued, among other things, that it was immune from Lackey’s claims because she could not establish the prima facie element that she was qualified for her position. … first establish that she was qualified for her position.

Espindola v. State

855 So. 2d 1281 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Oct 22, 2003

This makes the cost of sexual offender victimization to society at large, while incalculable, clearly exorbitant. … , within 48 hours after establishing permanent or temporary residence in this state.

KIPP, Inc. v. Kimberly Whitehead

446 S.W.3d 99 · Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Aug 12, 2014

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination, the employee must show that she: (1) is a member of a protected class; (2) was qualified for her position; (3) suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) was replaced … In order to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination, a plaintiff must show that she: (1) is a member of a protected class; (2) was qualified for her position; (3) suffered an adverse employment action; and

Salzer v. Farm Family Life Insurance

280 A.D.2d 844 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 8, 2001

that the statements are immune from disclosure. … Accordingly, we *847 conclude that such statements indeed were prepared in anticipation of litigation and, hence, enjoy qualified immunity under CPLR 3101 (d) (2) (cf., Lamitie v Emerson Elec.

O'Brien, J. v. Beatty, K.

329 A.3d 685 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 20, 2024

Finally, preliminary objections seeking dismissal of a cause of action “should be sustained only in cases in which it is clear and free from doubt that the pleader will be unable to prove facts legally sufficient to establish … The standard for determining who qualifies as a high public official “focus[es] on the nature of the duties of the particular public officer, the importance of his office, and whether or not he has policy- making functions

WEA Property & Casualty Insurance v. Krisik

352 Wis. 2d 73 · Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · Nov 7, 2013

However, neither Bethke nor Hall purport to establish a rule that one "occupies" property for purposes of the recreational immunity statute only when there is express permission to enter the property. … Krisik does not cite to any other legal authority establishing such a rule.

Brademas v. St. Joseph County Commissioners

621 N.E.2d 1133 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 30, 1993

Finally, Brademas claims the trial court erroneously determined Zap-pia was entitled to qualified immunity. … Because we hold the trial court properly found that Brademas did not meet the requirements of the public lawsuit statute, we need not address the issue of Zappia's qualified immunity.

Taylor v. Lantz

129 Conn. App. 437 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Jun 14, 2011

Alternatively, the court concluded that summary judgment was proper because the defendants *442 were entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. This appeal followed. … immunity.

Univ. of Ky. v. Davis

551 S.W.3d 443 · Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Sep 15, 2017

Because of their length of employment with UK, each qualified to participate in UK's long-term disability (LTD) benefits program for its regular full-time employees. … immunity.

People v. Cooke

16 Cal. App. 4th 1361 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 29, 1993

Smith, supra, 615 F.2d 964, 972 ): “ ‘[T]he opportunities for judicial use of this immunity power must be clearly limited; ... the proffered testimony must be clearly exculpatory; the testimony must be essential; and there … question we do not decide—the record establishes that the circumstances were not appropriate here . . .