Case law

Brien v. Lomazow

227 N.J. Super. 288 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 4, 1988

That protection, in effect, is the very same qualified immunity which, under N.J.S.A. 2A:47A-1, subjects a complainant to civil liability for complaints which are false, malicious and without probable cause. … As plaintiff has failed to establish a successful malicious prosecution action and that claim was properly dismissed, we conclude that defendant is entitled to the immunity embodied in N.J.S.A. 45:9-19.1.

Augusta Judicial Circuit Office of the Public Defender v. Necia Hodge-Peets

Court of Appeals of Georgia · Mar 5, 2024

Regarding a state’s immunity from federal claims in its own courts, the Alden Court wrote: Our sovereign immunity precedents establish that suits against nonconsenting States are not properly susceptible of … Although the FEPA clearly applies to state disability discrimination claims, it makes no mention of the ADAAA or its predecessor. Id.

Willingham v. City of Orlando

929 So. 2d 43 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · May 12, 2006

In addition, Officer Costa claimed that he was clothed with qualified immunity from personal liability for damages by virtue of section 768.28(9)(a), Florida Statutes (2003), because his actions were "conducted in good faith … The actions of Officer Costa do not fall within the definition of willful and wanton, and were clearly not malicious or taken in bad faith, and no reasonable jury could have concluded otherwise.

AMANDA HEINE and JHAYLA STREADY v. FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRUSTEES

District Court of Appeal of Florida · Apr 26, 2023

Because the attachments to the operative complaint did not clearly and unequivocally show the 3 existence of an express contract, the trial court found Students did not establish a cause … Looking at the plain language of section 1009.24, the Legislature clearly did not authorize a private cause of action premised on the improper collection of fees, and, therefore, has not expressly waived sovereign immunity

French v. Hines

182 Md. App. 201 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 3, 2008

Moreover, the court noted that qualified immunity under the MTCA does not attach when a State employee acts with malice or gross negligence. … In its jury instructions, the court below defined “malice” in the context of immunity for violations of State law; the court instructed that appellant was entitled to qualified immunity for violations of State law if he acted

Ness v. Glasscock

13 Brief Times Rptr. 638 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Jun 1, 1989

He argues that he had clearly established rights under existing law. We agree. Under Harlow v. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), there is a qualified immunity for public officials performing discretionary acts.

Department of Transportation v. United Capital Funding Corp.

219 So. 3d 126 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Apr 28, 2017

“This chapter” clearly encompasses all of section 679.4061(1). “[D]oes not apply to” then clearly restricts applying section 679.4061 to government transfers that would otherwise be included. … An established body of common law *135 and statutory rules governing contracts serves that function.

Goldsberry v. Lewis

2 Kan. App. 2d 56 · Court of Appeals of Kansas · Feb 10, 1978

The court in Goldsberry I established the principles governing the determination of the validity of service of process in this case. … The order of July 7, 1976, setting aside the service clearly amounted to a failure “otherwise than upon the merits” as contemplated by K.S.A. 60-518.

Stone v. City of Fayetteville

3 N.C. App. 261 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 18, 1968

Asheville, supra, clearly established governmental immunity for North Carolina municipal corporations from wrongful death actions arising from the operation of a public sewerage system. Williams v. … Greenville, supra, appears to establish the principle for a facility maintained by a city for sewerage and drainage. James v. Charlotte, supra, applies the doctrine to a sanitation department maintained by a city.

Ferguson v. Loder

186 Md. App. 707 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 7, 2009

Loder moved to dismiss, arguing that she was entitled to qualified immunity. … Loder also joined in the motion, and repeated her claim of qualified immunity under the MTCA. 4 .

Schroeder v. Irvine City Council

118 Cal. Rptr. 2d 330 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 6, 2002

After Measure F qualified for the ballot, City continued contributing to ETRPA, and ETRPA continued its opposition to the proposed airport. … However, “the right to petition has never been absolute” (id. at p. 56), and “baseless litigation is not immunized by the First Amendment right to petition.” (Bill Johnson’s Restaurants, Inc. v.

Kangas v. Perry

239 Wis. 2d 392 · Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · Oct 3, 2000

We conclude that Perry is immune from liability under the equine immunity statute. … A trial court's findings of fact will be affirmed unless they are clearly erroneous. See Sellers v. Sellers, 201 Wis. 2d 578, 586 , 549 N.W.2d 481 (Ct. App. 1996); see also Wis. Stat. § 805.17 (2).

Palm Beach County Sheriff v. State

854 So. 2d 278 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Sep 17, 2003

Mandamus may not be used to establish the existence of such a right, but only to enforce a right already clearly and certainly established in the law. Fla. League of Cities v. … The Sheriff cites no statute that clearly authorizes the type of relief he seeks.

Sanders v. State

783 S.W.2d 948 · Court of Appeals of Tennessee · Sep 20, 1989

The evidence established and the state virtually conceded that the exposed concrete footing was a dangerous condition and injury therefrom was foreseeable. … The state asserts that it produced as witnesses persons who would qualify as proper state officials to which notice of an unsafe condition should be given, and that they all testified that they had no knowledge of the protruding

JUSTIN BAILEY v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA

District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jan 19, 2022

In this regard, “[a] district court should exercise its discretion to grant certiorari review only when there has been a violation of a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice.” … Without controlling precedent on an issue, a district court cannot conclude that a circuit court violated a clearly established principle of law. Edenfield, 58 So. 3d at 906; see Balzer v.

Nariocan Enterprises LLC D/B/A Cantu's Pharmacy v. the Texas Health and Human Services Commission

Texas Court of Appeals, 15th District · Mar 28, 2025

Sovereign immunity encompasses two distinct principles: immunity from suit and immunity from liability. Id. … Id. at 30770-71 (emphasis added); see 42 U.S.C. 247d-6d(b)(8) (“During the effective period of a declaration . . . no State or political subdivision of a State may establish, enforce, or continue in effect with respect

Horning-Keating v. State

777 So. 2d 438 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 9, 2001

Rothstein which would not qualify as evidence in any event. … Clearly, the attorney/client privilege is not a bar to discovery in this case, and to the extent that the work product immunity may be ( i.e. that Ms.

Jones v. Insurance Company of North America

303 So. 2d 902 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Feb 7, 1975

Although an attempt was made to establish Mortuary's ownership of the pickup truck allegedly involved in the accident, the record clearly preponderates in favor of the conclusion that the truck was owned by Davis individually … However, under the circumstances, Davis may not invoke the rule that he is immune from tort liability herein.

Tasse v. Marsalek

2020 Ohio 5084 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 29, 2020

It is well-established that the defenses in R.C. 2744.03 are only relevant if a plaintiff has established that one of the exceptions to immunity laid out in R.C. 2744.02(B)(1) through (5) applies to the conduct at issue … Because Appellees have not established that an exception to employee immunity applies here, Jarvis is entitled to immunity from their negligence claims.

City of Rochester v. Union Free School District Number Four of Town of Livonia, Livingston County

255 A.D. 96 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 28, 1938

nothing more than shift from one person or class of property to another its proportionate share of the cost of government, the courts have favored such exemption only in those rare instances where the purpose of the statutes clearly … indicates the Legislature’s intent to give immunity from tax.