Case law

Davis v. Board of Education for Prince George's County

222 Md. App. 246 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 3, 2015

The appellants argued to the court that the letter from the MIA established that the Board had not complied with the filing requirements of EA section 4-105, and therefore was not entitled to the immunity set forth in CJ … The appellants also argued that the letter established that the Board did not have any liability insurance, and for that reason as well did not comply with EA section 4-105 and was not entitled to immunity under CJ section

Gardner v. ZULU SOCIAL AID & PLEASURE CLUB

98 La.App. 4 Cir. 1040 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Feb 10, 1999

This certainly was not the intent of the legislature, which clearly intended this statute to grant tort immunity. … Thus, in sum, I strongly believe that plaintiffs' contract claim does not fall within the gamut of the immunity statute, which clearly should be limited to tort immunity. Mr.

Commonwealth v. Wooden

70 Mass. App. Ct. 185 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Sep 20, 2007

Defense counsel, however, did not clearly raise this issue at the hearing. … Doherty, supra at 345 (permissible to deny immunity if proffered statement not clearly exculpatory).

COREY BLAND VS. CITY OF NEWARK (L-2305-13, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 16, 2021

"Qualified immunity is a doctrine that shields government officials from a suit for civil damages when 'their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Torrez and Martinez, who arrived on the scene late and began shooting, were also entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiffs failed to present "caselaw demonstrating that [they] . . . violated a clearly established

City of Dallas v. Texas EZPawn, L.P. D/B/A EZ Money, Loan Services

Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas) · Apr 1, 2013

As relevant here, section 51A-4.207 defines Alternative Financial Establishment as “a car title loan business, check cashing business, or money transfer  business. . , An alternative financial establishment does … not include an establishment that provides tinanciul services that arc accessor to another main use.’’

Darrell and Betty McIntosh, as Next Friends of Scott Bradley McIntosh, a Minor v. James Alexander, Ph.D.

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Jun 12, 1997

The McIntoshes also contend Alexander was not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of official immunity because he failed to establish the good-faith element of official immunity. … The terms "official," "quasi-judicial," "good faith," "discretionary," and "qualified" immunity appear to be used indiscriminately and interchangeably by some courts. See City of Houston v.

STEVE HARMAN v. MANHEIM REMARKETING, INC., Defendant-Respondent.

461 S.W.3d 876 · Missouri Court of Appeals · May 26, 2015

This section requires the employer to either carry insurance or qualify as a self-insurer. 8 Mays v. Williams, 494 S.W.2d 289, 291 (Mo. banc 1973). … Just because Jenkins is not liable to Sexton for coverage in this instance does not remove Jenkins’ civil immunity. Sexton, 41 S.W.3d at 6-7.

Erica Wade v. Jackson-Madison County General Hospital District

469 S.W.3d 54 · Court of Appeals of Tennessee · Jan 27, 2015

Walker’s motion for a qualified protective order on November 20, 2013. On March 27, 2014, Dr. … immunity as applied to local governments.”

Holda v. County of Kane

88 Ill. App. 3d 522 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 11, 1980

Stat. 1975, ch. 85, par. 9—103(b)), to waive “ * * * its immunity from suit by reason of the defenses and immunities provided in this Act.” … Arnolt is clearly controlling here; the indemnity provision for the sheriff as stated in the counties act neither creates liability nor provides immunity from suit in any civil action.

Doe v. McIntire

12 Mass. L. Rptr. 697 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Feb 2, 2001

Those who are not qualified aliens are not eligible for any federal public benefit, except limited short-term benefits such as emergency medical assistance, immunizations, and access to soup kitchens. 8 U.S.C. §§1611 . … Two years after Graham was decided, the Supreme Court declared: It is established, of course, that an alien is entitled to the shelter of the Equal Protection Clause ... In Graham v.

Willis A. Smith Construction, Inc. v. Keathley, the Board of Trustees of the University of South Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida · Apr 24, 2026

WASC claimed workers' compensation immunity as an affirmative defense, arguing that Mr. Keathley was its statutory employee and that therefore it was immune from tort liability. … project, it did not establish that it sublet any part of that contractual obligation to West Shore.

Gordon v. Lewistown Hospital

714 A.2d 539 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 24, 1998

Although it was not necessary to a determination to apply the immunity provisions of the Federal Act in Allison , we clearly recognized its applicability in this Commonwealth. This is true although Dr. … Therefore, despite the fact that the hospital is immune from Dr.

Texas Department of Family & Protective Services v. Atwood

176 S.W.3d 522 · Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Jan 24, 2005

These responsibilities clearly fall to the Roes, not DFPS. In City of Denton v. … A joint venture is not established if any one of the four elements is not present. Id. (citations omitted).

K.H. v. Dixon

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 1, 2024

This Court has indicated that “[s]overeign immunity is not merely a defense to a cause of action; it is a bar to actions that requires a plaintiff to establish a waiver of immunity.” Id. … Thus, plaintiff’s contention falls short of establishing that defendant waived its sovereign immunity.

Estate of King v. Wagoner County Board of County Commissioners

146 P.3d 833 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Jul 25, 2006

The writings by themselves fail to establish agency; they leave the precise legal status in a clouded or inconclusive state. … its probative value. 137 Arguing that Todd Sharp was not qualified, KTUL emphasizes that Sharp had never testified or been qualified before any court in the United States as an expert witness, and he holds a degree in general

King v. Arbic

159 Mich. App. 452 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 21, 1987

In any event, defendant clearly prevails on the immunity issue. B. … Because all of the Ross elements are present defendant is clearly entitled to governmental immunity on the nonintentional negligent prosecution charge.

Area Landscaping, L.L.C. v. Glaxo-Wellcome, Inc.

160 N.C. App. 520 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 7, 2003

As this Court explained in a tortious interference with contract case regarding an *524 employment contract: “It is true that so-called ‘non-outsiders’ often enjoy qualified immunity from liability for inducing their corporation … However, the qualified immunity is lost if the non-outsider acts with a wrongful purpose. See Lenzer, 106 N.C. App. at 513 , 418 S.E.2d at 286 .

Smith v. Walker

138 N.J. Super. 187 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 5, 1975

Their reliability as an indicator of the truth has been fully established. … Ryan, supra , qualifies. Defendant's attorney will submit an order, consented to as to form or on five days notice, providing for: 1.

Simpson v. OP PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC

939 N.E.2d 1098 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 17, 2010

The party seeking immunity bears the burden of establishing the immunity. … If the facts allow multiple reasonable conclu *1104 sions as to an element triggering the immunity, then the governmental unit has failed to establish its immunity. Gary Cmty. Sch. Corp. v.

Leveque v. Paulson

126 Or. App. 12 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 19, 1994

The court reiterated the well established rule that absolute immunity attaches to statements made by parties, witnesses or affiants during or incident to a judicial proceeding. 219 Or at 388 . … The allegedly defamatory statement appeared in a sentence suggesting that only less qualified expert witnesses, including plaintiff, were available to testify on Greene’s behalf.