Case law

Marley v. Palmyra Bor.

193 N.J. Super. 271 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 7, 1983

The provisions of the act primarily involved are those which establish immunity for law enforcement actions and for failure to enforce the law. … Consequently, the availability of public employee immunity may determine the liability of the municipality itself. The necessity for establishing *284 a workable interpretation of the two immunity provisions is clear.

Ortega v. Port of Portland

147 Or. App. 489 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 16, 1997

The State is clearly immune from suits in personam brought under the general *496 maritime law without its consent. Ex parte [State of New York, No. 1.] … The former has traditionally recognized state sovereign immunity, and the latter embodies a qualified waiver of that immunity.

Wimbish v. School District

59 Pa. Commw. 620 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 10, 1981

amendment of pleadings to allow full development of a party’s theories and averments “does not encompass a duty in the courts to allow successive amendments when the initial pleading indicates that the claim asserted cannot be established … Nor may appellant find relief in the other seven exceptions to the immunity bar.

Page v. City of Philadelphia

25 A.3d 471 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 18, 2011

To defeat the defense of sovereign immunity, Page must also establish that his claim falls within one of the nine enumerated exceptions to sovereign immunity set forth in Section 8522(b) of the Sovereign Immunity Act. … To the extent that Page attempts to establish that the exception to sovereign immunity under Section 8522(b)(5) of the Sovereign Immunity Act is applicable, we must also disagree.

Rooney v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol

2017 Ohio 1123 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 28, 2017

The Court of Claims found that Davis, the alleged negligent state employee, was clearly engaged in the performance or nonperformance of a public duty for which the state was immune from liability. … Rooney argues that the Court of Claims and the Patrol's "interpretation of the pleading standard regarding immunity defenses is overly broad, and it contravenes well-established Ohio jurisprudence, which only requires a plaintiff

HART Et Al. v. SIRMANS

336 Ga. App. 212 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Mar 22, 2016

Official or ‘qualified’ immunity protects individual public agents from personal liability for discretionary actions taken within the scope of their official authority, and done without wilfulness, malice, or … Equating actual malice with ill will would lead to this absurd result, contrary to well-established rules of constitutional construction. (Citations omitted.) Adams v.

James v. New York State Bridge Authority

295 A.D.2d 316 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 3, 2002

In the field of highway safety planning, a municipality is immune from liability for negligence for acts involving discretion *317 (see Tomassi v Town of Union, 46 NY2d 91, 97 ; Lewis v State of New York, 70 AD2d 706 , 708 … Under these circumstances, the Bridge Authority established that it has qualified immunity, the opinions of the plaintiffs expert contradicting the speed report notwithstanding (see Affleck v Buckley, 96 NY2d 553, 557 ; Schuster

In Re Carroll

339 N.J. Super. 429 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 24, 2001

POINT II: THE DECISION BELOW IS CONTRARY TO ESTABLISHED LAW IN THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, WHICH HOLDS THAT A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO IS GRANTED USE IMMUNITY AND IS THEN WARNED OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF DECLINING TO ANSWER … have been clearly advised of his use immunity at the outset as a prerequisite to the subsequent imposition of a disciplinary sanction for refusal to make a statement.

Huffman v. Indiana Department of Environmental Management

788 N.E.2d 505 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 19, 2003

clearly suggested that intent. *509 3 Because the legislature already has defined who qualifies for administrative review, it was error for the OEA to read into the phrase "aggrieved or adversely affected" a common law standing … or adversely affected" person merely by establishing that she is a citizen of the State of Indiana.

Chorak v. Naughton

409 So. 2d 35 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 5, 1982

To establish a battery, a plaintiff must suffer a harmful or offensive contact, and the tortfeasor must have intended to cause such contact. … Thus, the exclusivity provision of the Act clearly precludes an employee who acts with willful and wanton disregard, or with gross negligence and whose actions cause injury to a fellow employee from claiming immunity for

Stath v. Williams

174 Ind. App. 369 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 3, 1977

Based on these facts appellants first question the coroner’s jurisdiction asserting that the death of Robert Stath was so clearly accidental as to preclude any suspicion of criminal conduct therefore rendering the performance … by the American board of pathology for certification or a physician holding an unlimited license to practice medicine in Indiana acting under the direction of such qualified physician to perform such autopsy, * * This clearly

Larabee v. Governor of the State

65 A.D.3d 74 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 2, 2009

Even if legislative statements resulting in a decision or action are immune, the unlawful discharge of an immunized decision might not itself be within the circle of immunity, if it is not essential to legislative independence … We are also mindful of the many concerns set forth in the record about the future retention of qualified jurists and the attraction of highly qualified attorneys to the bench as judges retire or otherwise leave.

Phillips v. Chang

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 28, 2023

Dismissal on this ground is proper when “the facts and allegations [in the complaint] establish a lack of subject[-]matter jurisdiction.” Id. … The Supreme Court stated clearly that it has “no intention of relinquishing [its jurisdiction] to any degree or extent.” Id.

Farrell v. Estell Manor Zoning Bd. of Adj.

193 N.J. Super. 554 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 10, 1984

They assert, however, that intervenor is entitled to a qualified immunity from the strict terms of the zoning ordinance and should, therefore, be permitted to operate a residential treatment and evaluation center at the subject … Defendants argue that assuming all of the above to be true the State's qualified immunity does not inure to the benefit of the plaintiffs and cannot be relied upon by the State which is the lessee and not the owner.

Hughes v. County of Burlington

99 N.J. Super. 405 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 26, 1968

It was also established that engineering officials of the county and state highway departments had endorsed their *411 approval of the plans for the reconstruction of the road pursuant to federal aid requirements. … Plaintiff adduced the testimony of two engineering experts qualified as to knowledge of highway construction standards.

Frasher v. State

3 Tex. Ct. App. 263 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jul 1, 1877

It clearly recognizes the distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state. A person must reside within a state to make him a citizen of it. … The power as conferred in the first part of the section is without limitation, but in the latter part of the section is expressly restricted and qualified by the plain declaration that the rights conferred shall be enjoyed

Knight v. Mississippi Transportation Commission

10 So. 3d 962 · Court of Appeals of Mississippi · Apr 21, 2009

Finally, the duty to maintain highways and place warning signs clearly requires the MTC to consider the policy considerations of doing so. … In other words, “[as] established by precedent of both this Court and the supreme court, where any of the immunities enumerated in section 11^49-9(1) apply, the government is completely immune from the claims arising from

LATOYA BRAY v. STORMIE CROCKFORD WATKINS

Court of Appeals of Georgia · Sep 4, 2025

Dollar, 287 Ga. 618, 619 (697 SE2d 775) (2010) (“The doctrine of official immunity, also known as qualified immunity, offers public officers and employees limited protection from suit in their personal [or individual] … The party seeking to benefit from a waiver of sovereign immunity bears the burden of establishing such a waiver. Id.

Pierce v. Fidelity and Casualty Co. of New York

205 So. 2d 831 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Dec 19, 1967

The Hamilton decision clearly disposes of defendant's contention that the 1960 amendment to Article 3, Section 35 did not intend to "waive the traditional immunity of the municipality in connection with the performance of … Defendant avers that certain acts passed in 1960 and 1966 clearly illustrate that specific legislative authority waiving both immunity from suit and liability is necessary in order to file suit against the state or any of

Cochise County v. Borowiec

162 Ariz. 192 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Oct 24, 1989

The doctrine of sovereign immunity simply does not relate to administrative appeals. … For example, A.R.S. § 12-821 prescribes the method by which. a claim against a public entity or public employee may be brought, and §§ 12-820.01 and 12-820.02 provide for absolute and qualified immunity of public employees