Opinion ID: 1313347
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Child Abuse Immunity Statute

Text: The appellees defended in the district court on the basis of § 28-716 and direct our attention to the statute, which states in pertinent part: Any person participating in an investigation or the making of a report pursuant to the provisions of sections 28-710 to 28-717 ... shall be immune from any liability, civil or criminal, that might otherwise be incurred or imposed, except for maliciously false statements. It is clear that the investigation of Shearer and the placement of her name in the Registry were conducted pursuant to the provisions of Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 28-710 through 28-717 (Reissue 1995). Shearer does not allege, nor does the record reveal, any maliciously false statements by the appellees. Therefore, by the plain language of this statute, Leuenberger and Allen, in their individual capacities, are immune from liability under state law. Although Shearer does not expressly challenge the constitutionality of § 28-716, we note that the U.S. Supreme Court has specifically approved a similar statute from California which granted public employees immunity from liability resulting from determinations of whether to parole or release prisoners from the California penal system. See Martinez v. California, 444 U.S. 277, 100 S.Ct. 553, 62 L.Ed.2d 481 (1980). We also note that other jurisdictions have held statutes similar to § 28-716 to be valid and enforceable. See, e.g., Lux by Lux v. Hansen, 886 F.2d 1064 (8th Cir.1989); B.W. v. Meade County, 534 N.W.2d 595 (S.D.1995); Elmore v. Van Horn, 844 P.2d 1078 (Wyo. 1992); Dept. of Health and Rehab. v. Dougherty, 700 So.2d 77 (Fla.App.1997), review denied 717 So.2d 530 (Fla.1998); Davis v. Durham City Schools, 91 N.C.App. 520, 372 S.E.2d 318 (1988); Storch v. Silverman, 186 Cal.App.3d 671, 231 Cal.Rptr. 27 (1986).