Case law

State, Ex Rel. Ferguson v. Shoemaker

45 Ohio App. 2d 83 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 21, 1975

If it were otherwise it would mean that one could not mandamus a state officer to perform a clearly mandatory duty or one could not enjoin him from committing a patent and outrageously illegal act. … Chapter 2743, waiving the sovereign immunity of the state, consenting to suits against the state, establishing the Court of Claims, and providing for procedures for such actions, applies only to actions against the state

Moore v. Cobb-Nettleton

2005 Pa. Super. 426 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 21, 2005

The defendants were clearly qualified to conduct an evaluation of M.M. … The statements in defendant’s affidavit clearly establish the existence of a conditional privilege.

Texas State Board of Social Worker Examiners v. Katherin Youniacutt and Tammy Thompson

Texas Court of Appeals, 15th District · Aug 7, 2025

Id. at 74. 8  Not only did the Court find that this was a “viable claim” “sufficient” to establish jurisdiction and overcome sovereign immunity, id. at 77, it directed a … immunity exists.”).

Troy Thoele, Mike Barro, Ryan Partlow, Adam Ouda, and Troy Richard v. Rene Hinojosa, in His Official Capacity as the Director of the Parole Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice; David Gutierrez in His Official Capacity as Chairman of the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles; And the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles

Texas Court of Appeals, 15th District · Aug 14, 2025

Appellants acknowledge that the APA’s sovereign immunity waiver “does not apply to the TDCJ.” … That is true, even if the interpretation of the statutory language at issue is a close question on whether a bus stop qualifies as a “premises,” as Appellants argue.

Mercer v. State of California

197 Cal. App. 3d 158 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 21, 1987

fact as to whether the vehicular recreation area of Pismo State Beach was in an improved condition at the time of the accident. *165 Although the scope of section 831.2 is not made clear by its language, it appears that to qualify … immunity (Johnson v.

Kirkpatrick v. Town of Nags Head

213 N.C. App. 132 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 5, 2011

Given these factors and the well-established policy providing for the availability of governmental immunity in the absence of a clear statutory mandate to the contrary, Hodges v. … If no definition is given, non-technical words are to be given their meaning in ordinary speech, unless the context clearly indicates another meaning was intended.

Bartholomew County v. Johnson

995 N.E.2d 666 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 17, 2013

Because the ITCA is in derogation of the common law,[ 2 ] we construe it narrowly against the grant of immunity. The party seeking immunity bears the burden of establishing its conduct comes within the Act. … Likewise, when a governmental entity is otherwise liable as a joint tortfeasor, no governmental immunity is clearly extended on grounds that the other joint tortfeasor engaged in “the performance of a discretionary function

Benoit v. Missouri Highway & Transportation Commission

33 S.W.3d 663 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Nov 21, 2000

Clearly, MHTC did not raise an objection to Glennon’s opinion. … Section 537.600.1(2) establishes a waiver of this immunity for injuries resulting from the operation of a motor vehicle and the condition of an entity’s property. Casey v. Chung, 989 S.W.2d 592, 593 (Mo.App. 1998).

Vincent v. West Texas State University

895 S.W.2d 469 · Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo) · Mar 14, 1995

The wall of sovereign immunity stood. … Indeed, they specially excepted to the pleading defects regarding capacity and expressly asserted the affirmative defense of quasi-judicial/qualified immunity.

Watkins v. Arkansas Elder Outreach of Little Rock, Inc.

2012 Ark. App. 301 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 2, 2012

In this case, the third, fourth, and fifth factors are clearly the most relevant. … Neither fact was established in the ease at bar.

Duke v. Gunnison County

2019 COA 170 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Nov 14, 2019

The federal court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on the federal claim, concluding that no clearly established constitutional right had been violated, and the GCSO had not been deliberately indifferent … Colorado case law clearly establishes that the right to collect damages in a wrongful death case is “dependent upon the right of action which the decedent would have had, had []he survived [the] injuries.”

Jackson v. Georgia Lottery Corporation

228 Ga. App. 239 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Aug 11, 1997

From this listing of entities to which the defense of sovereign immunity was not available, the Miller court determined that, were it not for the waiver established by the Act, perforce, sovereign immunity would apply to … Assembly may enact legislation providing for the operation and regulation of a lottery by or on behalf-of the state and providing for the distribution of the proceeds thereof, which amendment was approved by a majority of qualified

Mauvis-Jarvis v. Wong

987 N.E.2d 864 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 28, 2013

There is no allegation they deviated from established protocol in reporting their allegations. … the defendant’s motives.”). ¶ 72 On the other hand, where only qualified privilege is granted the person making the statement is immune from liability unless some element such as malice is present.

Chadderton v. State

54 Md. App. 86 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 4, 1983

Clearly, an adequate basis had not been established for permitting the witness to express an opinion of the appellant’s character. … Jurow, "New Data on the Effect of a 'Death-Qualified’ Jury on the Guilt Determination Process,” 84 Harv.

Handlin v. Burkhart

101 A.D.2d 850 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 21, 1984

A qualified privilege does not afford a defendant an absolute immunity, but it does negate any presumption of implied malice flowing from the defamatory statement (see Toker v Poliak, supra; 35 NY Jur, Libel and Slander, … Mataxes’ affidavit and supporting documentation in opposition to the motion for summary judgment is devoid of the requisite evidentiary facts needed to establish that defendants were motivated by malice.

Rapacz v. Township High School Dist.

2 Ill. App. 3d 1095 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 29, 1971

For many years prior to 1959, the courts of Illinois adhered to "the ancient and established doctrine of governmental immunity from tort liability." ( Molitor v. … Defenses, established elsewhere in the Act, apply to all municipalities whether they are uninsured and depend upon statutory immunity or whether they have procured insurance.

August v. Hanlon

975 N.E.2d 1234 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 6, 2012

The court further found that “there was nothing else to really look at or present to me on behalf of the Plaintiff that clearly establishes that the Defendant’s comments were not covered by the [Act].” … a new absolute or qualified privilege for defamation.”

Cosentino v. Fuller

California Court of Appeal · Jun 22, 2015

The IGRA requires a tribe’s gaming ordinance to establish a licensing system for all “primary management officials and key employees of the gaming enterprise.” … The Court of Appeal reversed, concluding the record failed to establish the defendants qualified as tribal officials or acted within the scope of their official authority.

Buehler v. Newtown

206 Conn. App. 472 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Aug 3, 2021

‘‘This court’s standard of review for a motion for summary judgment is well established. … [General Statutes §] 52-557n abandons the common-law principle of municipal sovereign immunity and establishes the circumstances in which a municipality may be liable for damages. . . .

Braillard v. Maricopa County, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office

Court of Appeals of Arizona · May 27, 2010

(iv) Qualified immunity ¶39 Nor are we persuaded by the claims of qualified immunity asserted by the detention officers, Rodriguez, and Arpaio in his personal capacity.10 The doctrine of qualified immunity … Instead, the Court has held a right is clearly established when “in the light of pre-existing law the unlawfulness . . . [is] apparent.”11 Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 739 (2002).