Case law

Rajterowski v. The City of Sycamore

Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 1, 2010

When a law establishes a citizenship or residency classification, a court applies a two-part test in assessing whether the law violates the privileges and immunities clause. … The foregoing allegations are clearly conclusory.

Fossett v. Southeast Toyota Distributors, LLC

60 So. 3d 1155 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · May 18, 2011

The trial court ruled that SET had immunity from suit under section 440.11(2), Florida Statutes (2006). … “The help supplied is always on the payroll of the supplying establishments, but is under the direct or general supervision of the business to whom the help is furnished.”

Sheehan v. DuBois

1 Mass. L. Rptr. 124 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Jun 22, 1993

Finally, to the extent that the claim for damages could lie against DuBois, qualified immunity is a personal defense even if plaintiff could establish that he was in fact denied credits due him. … Ct., February 19, 1992), it cannot be said that the denial of good time credits was in violation of plaintiffs clearly established rights. O’Malley, supra.

Mercer v. Lowe

217 So. 3d 1235 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Apr 5, 2017

exists; or (2) To acts or omissions which constitute criminal, fraudulent, malicious, intentional, willful, outrageous, reckless, or flagrant misconduct. | fiThus, although BPSO and its employees may be entitled to the qualified … immunity set forth in La.

Commonwealth v. Gable

171 Pa. Super. 468 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 17, 1952

In the instant case, a reading of the entire record clearly establishes that defense counsel was given wide latitude and abundant opportunity to interrogate the witness Narr to test his veracity. … The record clearly establishes that defense counsel interrogated this witness and was able to portray to the jury precisely the nature of the witness’s character so that the jury was under no misapprehension as to possible

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department v. Ana G. Ruiz

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Mar 21, 2013

Importantly, subsection 101.106(b) is qualified by a consent exception: it bars suit against a governmental unit unless “the governmental unit consents.” Id. § 101.106(b). … The Esparza Court disagreed with Amadi and others to the extent that the limited waivers of immunity alone establish a government's consent to suit. See id. at 251.

Lacava v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority

157 A.3d 1003 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 2017

The City’s Argument that Lacava failed to establish an exception to governmental immunity under the “streets” exception 8 Although SEPTA asserted in its 1925(b) statement that the trial … ” exception to sovereign immunity.

T.T. the Bear's Place, Inc. v. Rodriguez

2 Mass. L. Rptr. 1 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Feb 17, 1994

The defendants argue that plaintiffs civil rights claims should be dismissed because defendants have qualified immunity. … Massachusetts has adopted this federal standard of qualified immunity for actions brought pursuant to the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act. Duarte v. Healy, 405 Mass. 43, 46 (1989).

State v. Charlotte Hungerford Hospital

133 Conn. App. 479 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Feb 14, 2012

Moreover, it overlooks the fact that, even for administrative agencies governed by the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act, some administrative rulings, such as those that do not qualify as final agency decisions in a contested … by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.

John v. City of Gresham

214 Or. App. 305 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 1, 2007

Summary judgment based on discretionary immunity is appropriate only if the defendant establishes all of the elements of the defense as a matter of law. Sande v. … That decision, the court decided, was the one at issue and was a routine decision that did not qualify for discretionary immunity. 335 Or at 32-34 .

Kimberly Newman v. Mildred L. Bryan

Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana) · Oct 9, 2013

2  Newman filed a plea to the jurisdiction alleging the trial court was without subject-matter jurisdiction because Newman has “official, governmental, qualified … Bryan clearly alleges she visited Newman in her “professional capacity as Financial Benefits advisor” at Newman’s office. The actions alleged to be negligent were performed by Newman during the course of that visit.

STS Management Development, Inc. v. New York State Department of Taxation & Finance

40 A.D.3d 620 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 1, 2007

In addition, the defendants presented evidence which met their burden of establishing their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with respect to claims by Schoolman asserting unlawful retaliation and violation of constitutional … Moreover, the defendants’ actions are entitled to qualified immunity because it was objectively reasonable for them to believe that their acts did not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory rights (see Anderson

Reardon v. Department of Mental Health

157 Mich. App. 505 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 2, 1987

Thus, plaintiff had established an exception to governmental immunity. … That finding was not clearly erroneous. MCR 2.613(C).

Redd v. Stanfield

217 Ga. App. 573 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Jun 12, 1995

The Supreme Court has clearly stated that the secondary liability and ensuing immunity imposed by OCGA § 34-9-8 applies to “those who contract to perform certain work ... for another, and then sublet in whole or part such … It is well established, however, that “statutory immunity from suit includes the statutory employer regardless [sic] whether that statutory employer . . . actually paid the workers’ compensation benefits.” Modlin v.

Kapiloff v. Dunn

27 Md. App. 514 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 23, 1975

Therefore the right to recover was clearly governed by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254 . … We take it that appellants contend that by creating a constitutional qualified privilege for false statements of fact, the Supreme Court immunized all expressions of opinion about individuals in the public official-public

Geyer v. Faiella

279 N.J. Super. 386 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 3, 1995

We note in this regard that prosecuting officials are not immunized under the law of this State for conduct constituting actual malice such as making knowingly false charges. See N.J.S.A. 59:3-14; Burke v. … The foregoing conclusions make it unnecessary for us to consider defendants' argument that the action for malicious prosecution must fail because their absolute immunity to the defamation claim provides a complete defense

Lomont v. State

852 N.E.2d 1002 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 23, 2006

The court ordered that Lomont could serve his one-year sentence in the Steuben County Work Release Program, if he qualified for the program, and placed Lomont on probation for two years. I. … In reviewing an alleged violation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause, we employ the two-part test established by the Indiana Supreme Court in Collins v. Day, 644 N.E.2d 72 (Ind.1994). Minton v.

Doug Blaine v. City of Sartell, County of Stearns

865 N.W.2d 723 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Jun 15, 2015

FACTS In 1983, owners of property in defendant LeSauk Township petitioned respondent County of Stearns for the establishment of a public drainage system. … As a matter of law, such evidence cannot establish that the flooding of Blaine’s property is of such frequency, regularity, and permanency as to constitute a taking. Cf.

People v. Aranda

188 Cal. App. 4th 1490 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 6, 2010

It is not clearly established, however, that a trial court has the authority to grant such immunity even in furtherance of a criminal defendant's due process rights. … Aranda has not established each of these necessary elements. Here, the expected testimony was not clearly exculpatory or essential.

Attorney General v. Ankersen

148 Mich. App. 524 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 3, 1986

He established and incorporated Ankersen Resources Systems, Inc. … Clearly, however, the Supreme Court in Disappearing Lakes did not overrule its prior decisions on the issue and this Court remains bound by these earlier decisions.