Case law

Arko Plumbing Corp. v. Rudd

230 So. 3d 520 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Oct 18, 2017

Under Florida’s absolute litigation privilege, a defendant can slander the plaintiff and lie to her and the court, and still be absolutely immune from a later lawsuit for defamation, tortious interference with a business … against Arko, who lied under oath, had a knowable drug problem, and was paid for his testimony, was circumstantial evidence of express malice. 16  Express malice “may be established

Tammy Anderson v. Houston Community College System and Johnella R. Bradford, Individually

458 S.W.3d 633 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jan 16, 2015

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination based on the employer’s failure to promote, the employee must show that (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she sought and was qualified for an available employment … The TCHRA “clearly and unambiguously waives immunity for suits brought against school districts under the TCHRA,” but the Legislature waived immunity “only for those suits where the plaintiff actually alleges

Angela Jo Carter v. the Honorable Glenn Hegar, Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · May 25, 2018

The Comptroller is the state agency tasked with certifying qualified vendors as HUBs. … Accordingly, we hold that Carter has failed to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination and we overrule Carter’s issues.

Visnick v. Caulfield

73 Mass. App. Ct. 809 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Mar 10, 2009

The privilege invoked by Caulfield is well established. … Ct. 360 , 361 n.3 (2007), “the denial of a pretrial motion predicated upon an absolute privilege, which provides immunity from suit, would also qualify under the doctrine of present execution.”

Brown v. Montgomery County Hospital District

929 S.W.2d 577 · Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont) · Sep 26, 1996

However, assuming all Brown’s allegations to be true, Bremer and Spring individually are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. See Boozier v. Hambrick, 846 S.W.2d 593, 597-98 (Tex.App. … This immunity, variously known as governmental, official quasi-judicial or qualified immunity, evolved out of a public policy that encourages public officers to carry out their duties without fear of personal liability.

Maeng Jong Choi v. Young Ae Choi

Court of Appeals of Virginia · Aug 1, 2023

The terms of Code § 17.1-405 clearly exclude this appeal from our appellate jurisdiction. “A pendente lite order is interlocutory.” Everett v. Tawes, 298 Va. 25, 34 (2019). … Acts ch. 307, § 2 (removing this Court’s jurisdiction to hear interlocutory appeals in certain cases involving sovereign, absolute or qualified immunities, but containing a savings clause that “any case affected by the

Gessner v. Vore, 22297 (8-1-2008)

2008 Ohio 3870 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 1, 2008

The trial court granted the motion on findings that Gessner's action is barred by res judicata and qualified immunity. (Dkt 24). … Defendants are clearly state officers.

State v. Marshall

254 Or. App. 419 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 9, 2013

Thus, Wilson’s testimony established that defendant, in giving his consent, actually relied on what he believed was a promise of immunity with respect to the contents of the RV. Further, that reliance was reasonable. … Wilson, a law enforcement officer, inserted a qualifying disclaimer in an official form at a citizen’s request.

Sherman v. City of Philadelphia

745 A.2d 95 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 31, 2000

Although we acknowledge that this analysis clearly sets up an “exception” to an exception in governmental immunity, thereby obliterating a distinction between sidewalks owned by a local government and those owned by private … citizens, such an analysis is clearly reasonable and reaches a sensible result.

Knowles v. City of Granbury

953 S.W.2d 19 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Oct 2, 1997

Good Faith A government official does not perform in good faith if his or her conduct “violatefs] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” 29 Plaintiffs *25 must … Further, they did not establish their own affirmative defenses of sovereign immunity and official immunity as a matter of law.

Cormier v. Guilbeaux

547 So. 2d 17 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jul 5, 1989

The trial court also found as an additional reason for Guilbeaux's dismissal from the suit that he qualified for shareholder immunity. … On this evidence, the facts necessary to establish Guilbeaux's immunity from tort liability have by no means been shown with the certainty required by La.C.C.P. arts. 966 and 967, for summary judgment purposes.

Wang v. Nibbelink

4 Cal. App. 5th 1 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 13, 2016

, wanton, or criminal,’ so long as the statutory predicates for the immunity have been established.” … However, Valladares does not stand for the proposition plaintiffs press in this appeal, i.e., that only moments devoted exclusively to recreation qualify for immunity.

Napoli v. Bianco

342 Pa. Super. 235 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 10, 1985

and permanent” as to qualify as an exception to the tort immunity provisions of the No-Fault Act. … This afforded the trial court an opportunity to grant a new trial on the basis of a recent decision which reversed a previously established rule.

People v. Hochanadel

176 Cal. App. 4th 997 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 18, 2009

For example, unlike the CUA, which did not immunize medical marijuana users from arrest but instead provided a limited ‘immunity’ defense to prosecution under state law for cultivation or possession of marijuana [citation … We further conclude that while those who operate storefront dispensaries that qualify as true cooperatives or collectives may be immune from prosecution for the offenses listed in section 11362.775, and defendants may have

Kinstle v. Jennison

179 Ohio App. 3d 291 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 10, 2008

The moving party must establish (1) that there are no genuine issues of material fact, (2) that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and (3) that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, and … Moreover, the work of the clerk of courts qualifies as a governmental function under R.C. 2744.02(C)(2).

Barker v. City of Galveston

907 S.W.2d 879 · Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Oct 26, 1995

Holloway raised an immunity defense under the doctrine of qualified immunity and under Tex. Civ.Prag & Rem.Code § 101.106. … The terms qualified, official, and quasi-judicial immunity are for all practical purposes the same. City of Houston v. Kilburn, 849 S.W.2d 810 , 812 n. 1 (Tex.1993); Travis v.

Winona Memorial Foundation of Indianapolis v. Lomax

465 N.E.2d 731 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 25, 1984

On that date, Winona was qualified as a health care provider within the meaning of the Medical Malpractice Act, IND.CODE 16-9.5-2-1. … the legislature intended to overrule the established law.

Gumpl v. Bost

81 Ohio App. 3d 370 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 15, 1992

Under federal law, a government official or employee is entitled to immunity unless the official or employee knew or should have known that the conduct at issue would violate a clearly established right. Harlow v. … There is no provision directing the Court of Claims to determine whether the state employee or official knew or should have known that his conduct was violating a clearly established right, an inquiry that would be necessary

M.S. v. Nova Southeastern University Inc.

881 So. 2d 614 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 21, 2004

In addition, the evidence established that. Coastal hired and paid the salaries of the physicians. … Plaintiffs and the School Board argue that this provision clearly indicates that the parties did not intend for Nova to act as an agent of the School Board.

Johnson v. Preferred Professional Insurance Co.

91 A.3d 994 · Superior Court of Delaware · Feb 17, 2014

failure to procure a qualified expert opinion ... … The exception for sham litigation is best explained as: “activity ostensibly directed toward influencing governmental action does not qualify for Noerr immunity if it is a mere sham to cover ... an attempt to interfere directly