Case law

Andrade v. Ellefson

375 N.W.2d 828 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Dec 30, 1985

State Tort Immunity. … The uncontroverted evidence here establishes that Anoka County owed the appellants a special duty of care. *839 3. Superseding Cause.

Wiggins v. City of Monroe

73 N.C. App. 44 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 19, 1985

Therefore, Rollins, on these facts, is not immune from liability. … Sec. 160A-485(a) (1982) establishes an exception to the common-law rule: *50 Any city is authorized to waive its immunity from civil liability in tort by the act of purchasing liability insurance.

GRAVITT Et Al. v. OLENS

333 Ga. App. 484 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Jul 23, 2015

The doctrine of official immunity, also known as qualified immunity, offers public officers and employees limited protection from suit in their personal capacity. … Id. at 125 (applying official or qualified immunity to city employees under the same standards applied to county employees); see Ga. Const, of 1983, Art. I, Sec. II, Par. IX (d) (applicable to counties).

Alfa Insurance Corp. v. Ryals ex rel. Ryals

918 So. 2d 676 · Court of Appeals of Mississippi · Jun 15, 2004

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 650 So.2d 1383 (Miss.1995), for its position that the Ryalses did not establish that the deaths arose out of the use of the MDOT truck. … Clearly, Ha-genson was qualified to testify as an expert in the field of forestry. His testimony was helpful to the jury on the issue of what caused the tree to fall and fatally injure the Ryalses.

Baez v. City of Amsterdam

245 A.D.2d 705 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 11, 1997

immunity. … Although plaintiff maintains that Supreme Court’s grant of summary judgment was premature absent a sharp factual dispute, the applicability of the qualified immunity doctrine, which shields from liability those official acts

Richard Brock Hill v. State of Tennessee

Court of Appeals of Tennessee · Apr 10, 2025

officers, to extending immunity to lower-level executive employees, to granting only qualified immunity to even high-ranking state officials. … Where executive branch officials are asserting absolute immunity, the burden of establishing that absolute immunity should apply rests upon the officials. Buckley v.

In Re the Welfare of S.J.T.

736 N.W.2d 341 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Jul 31, 2007

We conclude that the district court did not clearly err in its findings or abuse its discretion in its conclusion that appellant failed to establish that retaining appellant in the juvenile court serves public safety. … On this record we conclude that the district court did not clearly err or abuse its discretion by determining that appellant failed to establish that retaining appellant in the juvenile court serves public safety and by certifying

State v. Cerna

522 S.W.3d 373 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jun 27, 2017

The Eighth Circuit disagreed, finding that while “more than mere nudity is required before an image can qualify as ‘lascivious’ within the meaning of the statute,” it was not clearly erroneous for the fact-finder to consider … Further, Defendant also appears to argue that this statute provides “immunity” from prosecution, even though the word “immunity” does not appear in the statute.

the City of Colorado City, Texas, a Municipal Corporation v. Connie Ponko

216 S.W.3d 924 · Texas Court of Appeals, 11th District (Eastland) · Mar 8, 2007

Sovereign immunity is waived only when the legislature has clearly and unambiguously expressed that intent. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 311.034 (Vernon 2005). … with Section 554.006 is a requisite to establishing jurisdiction).

Link v. Pima County

193 Ariz. 336 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Jun 23, 1998

If an absolute immunity defense is raised and related factual issues exist, those issues should be re-' solved by the jury as in qualified immunity cases. See Chamberlain v. Mathis, 151 Ariz. 551 , 729 P.2d 905 (1986). … permitted to decide immunity, the County relies on federal cases involving qualified immunity.

City of Dallas v. Evelyn McKeller

Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas) · Mar 7, 2024

Second, the City argued McKeller could not establish a waiver of immunity for her negligence claim. … Cities retain immunity unless the Legislature clearly and unambiguously waives it. Id.

KREMEIER v. TRANSITIONS, INC.

345 P.3d 1126 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Oct 9, 2014

Hagley , 824 A.2d 107, 117 (Md. 2003) ("[N]egligence and lack of good faith are not equivalent," and "if good faith immunity can be overcome by establishing negligence, then good faith immunity is a meaningless concept as … Clearly, one may give "too much information" in good faith.

Pate v. City Council of Tuscaloosa

622 So. 2d 405 · Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · Mar 5, 1993

, to be within the scope of the powers granted municipalities to adopt such ordinances, and are not to be struck down unless they are clearly arbitrary and unreasonable. … In recent years, we have held that Parker immunity does not apply directly to local governments. . . .

Podgor v. Indiana University

178 Ind. App. 245 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 6, 1978

“To have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it — he must have more than a unilateral expectation of it. … Two, the student whose residence in Indiana is established because of the bona fide establishment of Indiana residency by his or her parents and who is entitled to pay lower tuition within the twelve month requirement.

Iverson v. Muroc Unified School District

32 Cal. App. 4th 218 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 6, 1995

In this case we address the question whether Government Code section 831.7, 1 which provides qualified immunity to public entities and public employees for injuries sustained by a person during “hazardous recreational activity … 846, sought to give a public entity and its employees specific qualified immunity from *224 liability for injuries due to defined “hazardous recreational activity” on public property.

City of Bloomington Utilities Department v. Walter

904 N.E.2d 346 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 15, 2009

In its motion for summary judgment, CBU argued that its conduct qualified for governmental immunity as a discretionary function under Seetion 3 of the ITCA. … The party claiming immunity bears the burden of establishing that its conduct comes within the ITCA. 3 Boyd, 890 N.E.2d at 800.

Northwest Independent School District v. Carroll Independent School District

Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth) · Feb 16, 2012

A majority of qualified voters in those districts voted in favor of consolidation. … The voters seeking to establish the new district clearly intended to and did incorporate the territory that had been in the consolidated school districts, no more and no less.

Conner v. Patton

133 S.W.3d 491 · Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Apr 16, 2004

Caudill, 186 F.Supp.2d 736, 740 (W.D.Ky.2001). *493 However, individual agents or supervisors who do not otherwise qualify as employers cannot be held personally liable in their individual capacities under KRS Chapter 344 … Furr, Ky., 23 S.W.3d 615 (2000), that sovereign immunity is waived as to claims brought under KRS Chapter 344.

Wadley v. County of Los Angeles

205 Cal. App. 2d 668 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 16, 1962

First, it should be pointed out that in the Muskopf case, supra, the Supreme Court clearly distinguished between the doctrine of sovereign governmental immunity as established by court rule and governmental immunity established … Plaintiff asserts that the claims provisions are clearly statutes of limitation and that they are void because they establish a different limitation in the case of actions against public agencies as distinguished from those

Bullard v. Wake County

221 N.C. App. 522 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 17, 2012

Turning to the merits of that affirmative defense, it is well established that the mere purchase of insurance standing alone does not waive a county’s sovereign immunity. … The defense of sovereign immunity *528 clearly applies to bar plaintiff's claims.” Id. at 597 , 655 S.E.2d at 924 .