Phillips v. Hanse

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that “[w]ilful, wanton and reckless conduct does not equate with the actual malice necessary to defeat a claim of official immunity” predicated on a discretionary act
• concluding that “[w]ilful, wanton and reckless conduct 13 does not equate with the actual malice necessary to defeat a claim of official immunity” predicated on a discretionary act
• explaining that a violation of state law “did not constitute a ‘deliberate intention to do wrong’ so as to constitute ‘actual malice’”
• acknowledging that evidence of law enforcement officer’s bumping his vehicle into a fleeing vehicle during a high-speed chase on the interstate system of a major city might be considered reckless
• affirming summary judgment based on official immunity because the officer's violation of the police manual during a high-speed chase did not turn his discretionary act of engaging in the chase into a ministerial one
• affirming summary judgment based on official immunity because officer had discretion to engage in high-speed chase, and the officer’s violations of several provisions of the police manual during the chase did not turn his discretionary act into a ministerial one

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).