Case law

Carey v. Davison

181 N.J. Super. 283 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 13, 1981

action appears to have been established. … While the decision in Gross clearly laid out the situations in which immunity would still apply, the decision does not recognize a cause of action for negligent supervision.

Brazos Transit District v. Arturo Lozano

Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont) · Mar 28, 2002

conversely if the employee is protected by qualified immunity, then so is the governmental entity; and "[t]o that extent, a claim of sovereign immunity may be 'based on' an individual's assertion of qualified immunity and … This cannot fairly be characterized as an assertion of qualified immunity. Brazos' attempt to appeal fails under section (5).

Casamasino v. City of Jersey City

304 N.J. Super. 226 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 2, 1997

tax assessor was not so apparent as to deprive him of the qualified immunity. … In so ruling, we are mindful that the availability of qualified immunity generally, when possible, should be decided on summary judgment. See Kirk v.

Quintana v. City of Westminster

2000 Colo. J. C.A.R. 641 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Feb 3, 2000

The burden of proving jurisdiction is on the plaintiff, and the trial court's findings of fact supporting a determination under the Act will not be reversed unless clearly erroneous. … Macaluso, supra, 892 P.2d at 277 (§ 24-10-106(1)(a) of the Act "does not require emergency vehicle operators to comply with section 42-4-106(4) in order to qualify for sovereign immunity").

Blunt v. Klapproth

309 N.J. Super. 493 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 3, 1998

under the Act clearly is applicable. … Plaintiffs claim that a special *508 relationship between the police and himself is irrelevant as immunity is clearly established.

Maio v. Kralik

70 A.D.3d 1 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 10, 2009

Kralik, as Sheriff of the County of Rockland, was entitled to qualified immunity. … “A government official is protected by qualified immunity insofar as the official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known” (Sagendorf-Teal

Winkles v. State

40 Md. App. 616 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 3, 1978

We see the alleged agreement — accepting arguendo appellant’s version of it — as neither a plea bargain nor a promised grant of immunity. … Bowie involved an alleged offer of immunity by the State’s Attorney which, we said, he had no authority to make. 3 In this instance, the State’s Attorney was clearly authorized to proceed or not to proceed with the prosecution

King v. Texas Department of Human Services

28 S.W.3d 27 · Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Sep 12, 2000

While this statute establishes a time limit for filing a civil action, it does not set a time limit for pleading appropriate jurisdictional facts. … Reasonable minds could therefore find either applicant more qualified or each equally qualified.

Oscar Ortega, Roggie Law, Steven Murdock, and Don Egdorf v. Alan Pean

Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Apr 11, 2019

Thus, to defeat a claim of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show that (1) the defendant’s conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged … See id. at 630 (to negate officer’s assertion of qualified immunity, plaintiff must present summary judgment evidence demonstrating an issue of material fact as to whether officer’s actions violated clearly established

Brook v. April

294 N.J. Super. 90 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 30, 1996

The judge reasoned that, if the municipal defendants were immune under the Tort Claims Act, defendants in this suit could not be liable for omitting to file the notice required to qualify plaintiff as a claimant under that … The same conclusion governs the relationship between causes of action conferred by the Workers' Compensation Law and the categorical immunities established in the Tort Claims Act.

Johnson v. Resendez

993 S.W.2d 723 · Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas) · Mar 25, 1999

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields an official performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages under section 1983 so long as the official’s conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional … Although the central issue in many qualified immunity cases is whether a particular constitutional right was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation, the threshold issue in this case is whether a constitutional

People of Michigan v. Vanessa Aidee Mansour

325 Mich. App. 339 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 19, 2018

In other words, the language establishing limited immunity in § 4 of the MMMA expressly conditions that immunity on the person possessing no amount of marijuana that does not qualify as usable marijuana … In other words, the language establishing limited immunity in § 4 of the MMMA expressly conditions that immunity on the person possessing no amount of marijuana that does not qualify as usable marijuana

EFFINGHAM COUNTY v. Rhodes

307 Ga. App. 504 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Dec 28, 2010

Sovereign immunity is not an affirmative defense . . . that must be established by the party seeking its protection. … The doctrine of official immunity, also known as qualified immunity, offers public officers and employees limited protection from suit in their personal capacity.

People v. Reed

294 Mich. App. 78 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 30, 2011

The Court, in making this statement, was clearly focusing on a defendant’s purportedly illegal conduct, not on the defendant’s arrest. We note that statutes should be construed so as to avoid absurd results. … for the qualifying patient, 12 marihuana plants kept in an enclosed, locked facility.

Joseph Janaszak, Dds v. State Of Washington

Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 7, 2013

This statute grants a qualified immunity. … (2) was the right at issue “clearly established” at the time of the defendant's alleged misconduct. 38 Qualified immunity applies unless the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established right.39

Subhash C. Batra, M.D. v. Covenant Health System D/B/A Covenant Medical Center/Covenant Medical Center-Lakeside

562 S.W.3d 696 · Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo) · Oct 9, 2018

The evidence presented does not clearly and specifically establish which referrals or procedures Dr. Batra lost due to the adverse report. … As discussed earlier, the evidence presented by Covenant negated actual malice; therefore, Covenant established that it was entitled to a qualified immunity defense as to all claims.

Carter v. Peace Officers Standards & Training Board

547 N.W.2d 431 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Jul 10, 1996

Therefore, we reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment on this claim. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 With respect to Carter’s claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , the state must establish it is entitled to qualified immunity. … A board’s decision to terminate an employee is afforded qualified immunity unless “a reasonable official would clearly know that a dismissal would be unlawful.” Stone, 511 N.W.2d at 751 .

Zaunbrecher ex rel. Father v. Martin

242 So. 3d 712 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Mar 21, 2018

in qualified immunity statutes, immunity should not apply to the security guards in this case. … , it's not qualified as Mr.

Antu v. Eddy

914 S.W.2d 166 · Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · Dec 6, 1995

The Chambers court also quoted with approval the law regarding federal qualified immunity in § 1983 cases: “[W]e look to whether a reasonable official could have believed his or her conduct to be lawful in light of clearly … his qualified immunity, then the County is not liable.”

Standard v. Hobbs

263 Ga. App. 873 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Nov 4, 2003

The doctrine of official immunity, also known as qualified immunity, offers public officers and employees limited protection from suit in their personal capacity. … The court held that the officers “were exercising their discretion” and were entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 125-126 (2).