Case law

Opinion No. (1991)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · May 6, 1991

Grubbs, 841 F.2d 1512 (10th Cir. 1988) (officials qualifiedly immune from liability under 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 if their conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known). ¶ 13 … applicable decisions of the United States Supreme Court, and a public official's enforcement of such a statute may well deprive that official of qualified immunity from liability under 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 .

Opinion No. (2005)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Oct 3, 2005

clearly established law"). … Individual District Directors would enjoy qualified immunity that "shields public officials from suit insofar as the official's conduct did not violate any clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

Department of Environmental Protection v. Franklin Tp.

3 N.J. Tax 105 · New Jersey Tax Court · Aug 4, 1981

, it would have clearly so stated. … Washington Tp., both supra, establish that property acquired by a state agency otherwise entitled to an exemption from taxation is not immune from the imposition of rollback taxes once a change in use has occurred.

Opinion No. 91-562 (1991) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · May 10, 1991

A COUNTY MAY NEVERTHELESS ESTABLISH IMMUNITY FROM TORT LIABILITY, IF IT CAN ESTABLISH FACT THAT WOULD ENTITLE IT TO ONE OF SEVERAL EXEMPTION PROVISIONS FOUND WITHIN THE ACT. … FURTHER, IMMUNITY FOR INCORPORATED CASA ORGANIZATIONS COULD ALSO BE MORE CLEARLY CONFERRED BY AMENDING THE RELEVANT PROVISION TO SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS IMMUNITY FROM VICARIOUS LIABILITY FOR THE INCORPORATED ORGANIZATION ITSELF

Bohn v. Waddell

164 Ariz. 74 · Arizona Tax Court · Apr 6, 1990

immunity only by showing that those rights were clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue." … Defendants have pled the defense of a qualified immunity.

Opinion No. (1998)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Mar 17, 1998

Qualified immunity sometimes is erroneously referred to as "good faith immunity." Before Harlow v. … Id. at 818-19 . ¶ 13 In its place, stands qualified immunity, which is a two-pronged, objective test: Does the plaintiff assert violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right and was that right clearly established

S&M Brands, Inc. v. Stein

2018 NCBC 26 · North Carolina Business Court · Apr 2, 2018

Plaintiff established an Escrow Fund and has made yearly payments into its Escrow Fund since the NC Qualifying Statute was enacted in 1999. … its immunity from suit.”

Broughton v. City of New York

91 Misc. 2d 543 · Civil Court of the City of New York · Sep 23, 1977

A prosecutor’s "quasi-judicial” immunity has been long and unequivocally established; however, research has disclosed no case in New York or elsewhere as to whether it covers a prosecutor’s activities in relation to securing … 834), similar to the qualified immunity on the basis of good faith that was developed in a series of cases where "a prosecutor engaged in certain investigatory activities”.

STATE v. MCCLURE

2004 NCBC 8 · North Carolina Business Court · Dec 4, 2004

The NFPA members at least had a plausible argument that excluding the plastic conduit may have involved some legitimate safety concerns. {36} The petitioning activities of NCESPA clearly do not qualify for immunity under … Id. {58} The Court first turns to whether DENR clearly expressed and articulated intent to displace competition with regulation among environmental consultants by establishing reasonable rates.

Colonial Trust III, & Investment Co. Institute v. Director, Division of Taxation

16 N.J. Tax 385 · New Jersey Tax Court · Feb 21, 1997

The Fund is qualified as a Regulated Investment Company (RIC) under Subchapter M of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (I.R.C. §§ 851-855) and is established under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended … Congress very clearly indicated that no substantive change was intended by that omission.

Opinion No. (1989)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Sep 26, 1989

INITIALLY, IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE OFFENDERS IN QUESTION ARE PROPERLY QUALIFIED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROGRAM AND ARE SENTENCED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS STATUTORY SCHEME. … TITLE 57 O.S. 228 (1988) ESTABLISHES TORT IMMUNITY ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES WHICH SPONSOR SUCH OFFENDERS, AND THEN WAIVES THAT IMMUNITY ON BEHALF OF THOSE GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LIABILITY

Salt & Light Co. v. Mount Holly Township

15 N.J. Tax 274 · New Jersey Tax Court · Nov 8, 1995

Parker involved, not a local property tax exemption, but the Charitable Immunity Act. NJSA 2A:53A-7 to -11. The question was whether a nonprofit housing corporation qualified as a charity under the act. … For-profit hotels and motels may accept government subsidized homeless persons, but they do not, at least in so far as the record in this case establishes, accept individuals who fail to qualify for government support and

Huzar v. State

156 Misc. 2d 370 · New York Court of Claims · Nov 5, 1992

In addition, for any actions that would not be protected by immunity, he moves for dismissal on the ground that the amended claim does not allege facts which, if proved at trial, would establish either intentional infliction … If not, there is a qualified immunity shielding the government from liability except "when there is bad faith or the action taken is without a reasonable basis.” (Arteaga v State of New York, 72 NY2d 212, 216 .)

Signature Health Center, LLC v. State

28 Misc. 3d 543 · New York Court of Claims · May 20, 2010

On the other hand, governmental actions that require the exercise of discretion but are not judicial or quasi-judicial have been held to be entitled to “qualified immunity,” meaning that they are immune from liability unless … In any event, all of the decisions cited above, in which qualified immunity was clearly recognized, postdate Tango . .

Miller v. Ohio Rehabilitation Services Commission

86 Ohio Misc. 2d 97 · Ohio Court of Claims · Jun 20, 1997

The fourth issue is whether Robert Rabe, William Casto, and Karen Whalen are entitled to personal immunity pursuant to R.C. 2743.02(F) and 9.86. … Even if the court had found the communications to be defamatory, they would be protected by qualified privilege. According to McKenna v.

Mink Hollow Development Corp. v. State

87 Misc. 2d 61 · New York Court of Claims · May 24, 1976

The claim clearly requests money damages and money damages only. … Were this a summary judgment motion and were there a more complete record, dismissal might be possible since once defendant establishes qualified privilege, the burden of proof is then on claimant to destroy it by showing

People v. Weiner

85 Misc. 2d 161 · Criminal Court of the City of New York · Jan 19, 1976

But these privileges and immunities referred to are qualified by the words "as are necessary for the fulfillment of its purposes.” … Casanova v Fitzpatrick, supra), clearly pointed out that immunity of United Nations personnel is not the same as the unlimited immunity granted to a foreign sovereign. Sovereign immunity is absolute.

Catholic Community Services v. City of Newark

21 N.J. Tax 633 · New Jersey Tax Court · Sep 14, 2004

It simply argues that the word “immune” literally does not appear in the statutory amendment, and thus plaintiff’s alternative use does not qualify for exemption. … Although it clearly is not dispositive, even as a semantical point, it is interesting to note that Black’s Law Dictionary (7th ed.1999) defines “immunity” to include "any exemption from a duty or liability,” and refers one

Sutton v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

2026 Ohio 1182 · Ohio Court of Claims · Mar 25, 2026

“Evidence that establishes, at best, the publisher ‘should have known’ of the alleged falsity of the statement is insufficient to establish actual malice.” Id., quoting Varanese v. Gall, 35 Ohio St.3d 78, 82 (1988). … Accordingly, reasonable minds can only conclude that defendant is immune from liability on plaintiff’s claim of negligence pursuant to R.C. 2743.02(A)(3)(a). {¶32} Additionally, regardless of defendant’s immunity under

Borough of Paramus v. County of Bergen

27 N.J. Tax 215 · New Jersey Tax Court · Jul 8, 2013

Operation of a county owned hospital is clearly a public purpose. … Reference to Lot 1, Qualifier X, will be abbreviated Qualifier X. Block 6401 Lot 1 has assigned to it a non-taxed assessment.