Case law

Kellums v. Freight Sales Centers

10 Fla. L. Weekly 1055 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Apr 25, 1985

Robert was contacted by National and made several statements regarding Kellums, which, if not true, would have been clearly slanderous. Contending that these statements were false, Kellums sued appellees for slander. … Certainly no reasons of policy can be found for conferring immunity upon the foolish and reckless defamer who blasts an innocent reputation without making any attempt to verify his statements; but on the other hand there

Richmond v. City of Asheville

242 N.C. App. 252 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 7, 2015

However, the retirement documents submitted to the State Retirement System ("the Retirement System") contain evidence of multiple alterations to make it appear that Clark did qualify for retirement. … Richmond's failure to establish malice, an element of that claim, does not render the remedy inadequate. See, e.g., Rousselo v.

David C. Goad v. the County of Guadalupe, Texas

Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · Jan 13, 2015

To determine whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, two questions must be answered: (1) whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right; and (2) if so, was the … To overcome a claim of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must establish that the right an official is alleged to have violated was "clearly established."' i.e., sufficiently clearly defined that " a reasonable official would

Cipolla v. Bloom Township High School District No. 206

69 Ill. App. 3d 434 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 22, 1979

The public policy considerations in authorizing, and indeed encouraging, teachers to have broad discretion and latitude in the former situation quite clearly do not apply with as much force to the latter.” … These decisions establish that the rule announced by the supreme court in Kobylanski is viable and applies to actions arising out of the teacher-student relationship in matters relating to the teacher’s personal supervision

Kolko v. City of Rochester

93 A.D.2d 977 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 1, 1983

Plaintiffs have not pleaded facts which would destroy the limited immunity protecting the defendant police officers while they executed the facially valid warrant in discharge of their - public responsibilities (see, generally … While Harris involved a motion for summary judgment, an affidavit by defendant established a qualified privilege and an absence of malice. In Privitera, the utterance at issue was not slander per se.

Rieger v. Montgomery County Clerk of Courts, 22575 (1-30-2009)

2009 Ohio 426 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 30, 2009

The court reasoned that Rieger had failed to establish an exception to the judicial immunity conferred on the Clerk of Courts and had failed to identify any legal reason why the order should not have been posted. … Judicial immunity is established in R.C.

Johannesen v. Eddins

2011 IL App (2d) 110108 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 28, 2011

Eventually, the board granted variations establishing an eastern sideyard setback of 32 feet and a front setback of 126 feet. … . ¶ 31 Here, the trial court clearly ruled only on the motion to dismiss brought under the Act.

Donna Independent School District v. Diana Quintanilla

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Feb 14, 2025

In three issues, which we construe as one, Donna ISD argues that the trial court erred in denying its motion because Quintanilla cannot establish a waiver of its sovereign immunity. … facts giving rise to an actual violation of the Act to qualify for the statutory waiver of immunity.

Branham v. Rohm and Haas Co.

2011 Pa. Super. 78 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 12, 2011

The argument that as a non-resident Dow is per se immune from subpoena is misguided and does not merit relief. … Similarly, Dow’s argument that is should be immune from discovery as a non-party merits no relief. Absent a specific assertion of privilege, non-party status per se affords no immunity from the service of a subpoena.

Zientek v. State

222 A.D.2d 1041 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 22, 1995

The court also should have granted the cross motion of defendants for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs causes of action against the individual defendants based upon their affirmative defense of qualified immunity. … Public officials "are clothed with a limited immunity, while discharging their public responsibility” (Teddy’s Drive-In v Cohen, 47 NY2d 79, 82).

City of Round Rock and Round Rock Fire Chief Larry Hodge v. Mark Whiteaker

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Nov 16, 2007

Whiteaker clearly has standing to assert his claims. … has clearly and unambiguously stated otherwise"). (10) The supreme court has also stated that sovereign immunity protects the state and its subdivisions against suits seeking to "control state action."

Jones v. Bitner

300 Mich. App. 65 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 21, 2013

Accordingly, this Court held that “through the Child Protection Law the Legislature intended to abrogate established immunity rales of the common law related to persons required to report abuse and neglect.” … In spite of its knowledge regarding the GTLA, the Legislature has not amended the mandatory reporting statute to clearly provide that it abrogates the later-enacted governmental immunity statute.

Candace Young v. Washington County, Tennessee

Court of Appeals of Tennessee · Oct 29, 2012

Hancock testified that Moore’s credentials, at that point in time, qualified him to work as a probation officer. … App. 2003), we held that “[i]t is well-settled that an act or omission is considered operational and immunity is removed when . . . the conduct deviates from an established plan or policy.” Id. at 48 (citing Chase v.

Bacon v. County of Westchester

149 A.D.2d 451 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 10, 1989

To establish a cause of action to recover damages for false imprisonment, the plaintiffs must show that "(1) the defendants intended to confine [them], (2) the plaintiff[s] were conscious of the confinement, (3) the plaintiff … Thus, issues of fact exist concerning the reasonableness of the defendants’ conduct and the applicability of their qualified immunity (see, Parvi v City of Kingston, 41 NY2d 553 ; Sindle v New York City Tr.

National Sports & Spirit, Inc. v. University of North Texas

117 S.W.3d 76 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Aug 27, 2003

UNT, however, contends that immunity is not waived because section 82.002(a) does not clearly waive sovereign immunity. … UNT responds that neither appellants’ nor Harvey’s pleadings were sufficient to establish waiver of sovereign immunity.

Cohen v. S & S CONSTRUCTION CO.

151 Cal. App. 3d 941 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 29, 1983

The immunity issue resolved, we proceed to consider the sufficiency of plaintiffs’ allegations against S & S. … But there are exceptions to this rule: “(1) where a party holds himself out to be specially qualified and the other party is so situated that he may reasonably rely upon the former’s superior knowledge; (2) where the opinion

Jones v. City of Longwood, Florida

404 So. 2d 1083 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Sep 23, 1981

We also agree with the city's contention before the trial court that its duty to inspect under this ordinance was necessarily qualified, since the building inspector and fire chief were not authorized to enter upon private … But the majority upholds the summary judgment because, as a matter of law, proximate cause could not be established because the operational level function of the inspector is just the first step in the chain of events which

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

Vasquez-Cromer v. Toledo

2019 Ohio 5149 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 13, 2019

R.C. 2744.02(B) apply, and (4) whether appellee is entitled to a defense or qualified immunity under R.C. 2744.03(A). Beck ex rel. Estate of Beck v. Adam Wholesalers of Toledo, Inc., 6th Dist. Sandusky No. … We do not find appellants met their burden to create any issues of fact that were both genuine and material to establish appellee is not immune from liability, and appellee is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Bungard v. Jeffers

2014 Ohio 334 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 28, 2014

By establishing the causal connection between Bungard’s injury and employment, Jeffers was entitled to fellow employee immunity as a matter of law. I. … The evidence here clearly showed that Kraton controlled the parking lot where the accident occurred.