Case law

Brown v. Ohio Dept of Rehab. & Corr.

2013 Ohio 4207 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 26, 2013

immunity. … Additionally, appellant contends the trial court erred in finding that Gilliam and Mason were entitled to qualified immunity. {¶ 20} Our review of the granting of summary judgment is de novo. Stevens v.

Texas Department of Health v. Hejl

635 S.W.2d 656 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jun 23, 1982

On the same day, the defendants answered by general denial and by claim of sovereign and qualified immunity, respectively. … The United States Supreme Court has held state officials enjoy a qualified common-law immunity from damage actions arising out of their official conduct. Scheuer v.

Curtis Pierce v. State of Tennessee

Court of Appeals of Tennessee · Jun 25, 2021

Do these considerations establish that the State is immune, or do they establish the Pierces’ right to pursue recovery under the Claims Commission Act? … more clearly illustrates.

Robert McKay v. Choctaw County, Mississippi, through the Choctaw County Board of Supervisors

Court of Appeals of Mississippi · Feb 23, 2021

The MTCA provides a governmental entity with immunity from any claim . . . … evidence established that Miller acted in reckless disregard of the safety of others and that Miller’s “conduct was a contributing factor to the accident in question.”

Marchant Investment & Management Co. v. St. Anthony West Neighborhood Organization, Inc.

694 N.W.2d 92 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Apr 5, 2005

ISSUE Did the real-estate developer clearly and convincingly establish that the neighborhood organization tortiously defamed the developer by stating or implying a provably false assertion of fact? … The participation-in-government immunity provided under Minn.Stat. §§ 554.01-554.05 (2004) explicitly requires the non-moving party to disprove the movant’s immunity by clearly and convincingly establishing an underlying

People v. Sipress

51 Cal. App. 3d 98 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 2, 1975

Concluding that the record does not establish that Health and Safety Code section 11367 so completely immunized the witness from all possibility of prosecution as to foreclose the possibility that his answers to the questions … that it clearly appears from a consideration of all the circumstances in the case that an answer to the challenged question cannot possibly have a tendency to incriminate the witness.”

Williams v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Sch. Bd. of Educ.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 17, 2023

And we acknowledge the TCA clearly waived immunity for school-bus accidents. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-300.1(a). That clarity, -8-  WILLIAMS V. … The TCA waived immunity, see Heath, 282 N.C. at 296, 192 S.E.2d at 310, but the EMA qualified the waiver, see N.C. Gen. Stat. § 166A-19.60(a).

Hoffman v. Ro-San Manor

73 A.D.2d 207 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 18, 1980

of the attorney’s zeal and investigative efforts, does not qualify as an attorney’s work product under subdivision (c). 2 Not every manifestation of a lawyer’s labors enjoys the absolute immunity of work product. … Nor do we believe that the names and addresses of witnesses qualify as material prepared for litigation.

Los Fresnos Consolidated Independent School District v. Enrique Rivas, Jr. and Elsa Rivas, Individually and as Next Friends of Felix Rivas, Magdalena Rivas, and Valentin Rivas, Minor Children

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Aug 18, 2005

Immunity-the Law "Mere reference to the Tort Claims Act does not establish the state's consent to be sued and thus is not enough to confer jurisdiction on the trial court." State Dep't of Crim. Justice v. … We conclude that the Rivases alleged facts sufficient to establish waiver of the School District's immunity. See T ex . C iv . P rac . & R em . C ode A nn . ' 101.021 (Vernon 2005). D.

People v. Colvin

203 Cal. App. 4th 1029 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 23, 2012

Thus, even under a reading of section 11362.775 limiting transportation of marijuana only to cooperatives that cultivate it, then Colvin was entitled to the immunity. … primary caregiver who transports, processes, administers, delivers, or gives away marijuana for medical purposes, in amounts not exceeding those established in subdivision (a) of Section 11362.77, only to the qualified patient

In re the Risk Level Determination of C.M.

578 N.W.2d 391 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Jun 2, 1998

Here, the police publicly distributed a notice that clearly suggested that relator had been convicted of sexually assaulting C.B., when in fact he had not been. … Fischley, 557 N.W.2d 328, 332-33 (Minn.1997) (noting that immunities are meant to immunize the government against suit rather than merely against liability).

People v. Superior Court (Crook)

83 Cal. App. 3d 335 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 11, 1978

to comply with the statute in offering limited immunity however puts a great burden on the People to establish the extent of the immunity so offered. … Without regarding the effectiveness of the immunity allegedly offered to the Defendant in the instant case, the offer made by the prosecutor for the advantage of the accused would clearly lend itself as the motivating cause

Theron and Sherry Pfantz v. Dr. Dwight McKenna in His Capacity as the Coroner, Orleans Parish Coroner's Office, and Abc Insurance Company

Louisiana Court of Appeal · Oct 22, 2025

Second, “the appellate court must further determine that the record establishes that the finding is clearly wrong (manifestly erroneous).” Id. … Immunity The Coroner argues that pursuant to La.

Maloney v. City of Philadelphia

111 Pa. Commw. 634 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 15, 1987

In his appeal, Maloney contends the facts of the case establish a cause of action which falls within the real property exception to immunity provided for in 42 Pa. C. S. §8542(b)(3). … He then contends this makes the scaffolding a fixture and qualifies it as real property in the possession of the City.

Fulk v. Roberts

164 Ill. App. 3d 194 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 9, 1987

Defendants contend on appeal that qualified immunity bars an action against them as private individuals. We agree. … As the defendants acted in good faith, qualified immunity barred this action for damages against defendants as private individuals.

Steward v. Magnolia

134 N.J. Super. 312 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 28, 1975

[At 241] Thus, despite the substantial erosion of interspousal immunity, there are clearly some areas in which the doctrine is still viable. Paraphrasing what was said in Pearce v. N.J. Highway Authority, 122 N.J. … It clearly does not encompass any immunity available to the employee for a reason other than his public employment, such as an interfamilial relationship.

Firstenergy Corp. v. City of Cleveland

179 Ohio App. 3d 280 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 23, 2008

may be asserted to establish nonliability: {¶ 14} “ * * * {¶ 15} “(5) The political subdivision is immune from liability if the injury, death, or loss to person or property resulted from the exercise of judgment or discretion … Accordingly, * * * the trial court erred by denying the City the protections of qualified immunity under R.C. Chapter 2744.”

City of Houston v. Ranjel

407 S.W.3d 880 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Aug 1, 2013

The undisputed jurisdictional evidence establishes as a matter of law that Houston’s governmental immunity has not been waived. … Given the undisputed jurisdictional evidence offered by the parties, we conclude that neither contention establishes a waiver of Houston’s immunity. A.

Maguire Oil Co. v. City of Houston

69 S.W.3d 350 · Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana) · Mar 6, 2002

A city is immune from liability for its governmental actions unless that immunity is waived. City of LaPorte v. Barfield, 898 S.W.2d 288, 291 (Tex.1995). … The City contends Rosenthal is not a common-law exception to sovereign immunity because Rosenthal did not involve sovereign immunity.

State v. Lueck

212 S.W.3d 630 · Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Oct 17, 2006

Sovereign immunity is waived only when the legislature has clearly and unambiguously expressed that intent. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 311.034 (West Supp.2005); Texas Dep’t of Transp. v. … (‘We believe the first sentence of section 554.0035 ... clearly waive[s] immunity from suit, while the second sentence of section 554.0035, by its terms, waives immunity from liability.”) (emphasis in original).