Case law

Arbor E & T Llc., D/B/A Rescare Workforce Services v. Lower Rio Grande Valley Workforce Development Board Inc. D/B/A Workforce Solutions

476 S.W.3d 25 · Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Dec 5, 2013

Section 271.152 of the Texas Local Government Code waives qualifying local governmental entities’ immunity from suit for certain breach of contract claims as follows: A local governmental entity that is authorized … As in Ben Bolt–Palito Blanco Consolidated Independent School District, Workforce Solutions argues that section 271.152 does not clearly and unambiguously waive its immunity from suit because it does not meet section 271.151

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 .

Wilson Ciceron and Rosie Ciceron v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc.

163 So. 3d 609 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Apr 15, 2015

Thus, Ciceron maintains that Sunbelt failed to qualify as a subcontractor and therefore, was not entitled to horizontal immunity. … Sunbelt’s opposing argument is that the trial court correctly found that it qualified for worker’s compensation immunity as a subcontractor, asserting that in addition to providing the scissor lifts to Associated Industries

Pacific Air Lines, Inc. v. Superior Court

231 Cal. App. 2d 587 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 7, 1965

Every statement in the document before us is declared “under penalty of perjury,” and clearly is vouched for by declarant. … They seek to expand this rule to require negation of contract venue, even when the complaint clearly states a cause of action in tort alone.

Holbrook v. Executive Conference Center, Inc.

219 Ga. App. 104 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Nov 17, 1995

After a period of discovery, Executive filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiffs “cannot establish a prima facie case of negligence.” … The purpose of the [ordinance in the case sub judice] is clearly to protect any [invitee bather] who might suddenly have need of a life [line], regardless of whether he or she enters the water voluntarily or involuntarily

McDougald v. ODRC

2018 Ohio 2315 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 14, 2018

The trial court erred by converting plaintiff[']s claims into constitutional claims when he clearly stated a state tort claim for invasion of privacy claim. [II.] … Delie, 257 F.3d 309, 317 (3d Cir.2001) (finding defendants entitled to qualified immunity, and noting that an inmate's right to privacy of medical information "is subject to substantial restrictions and limitations in order

Dauer v. Department of Education

874 A.2d 159 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 12, 2005

Where no right, privilege or immunity is in jeopardy, an agency’s action does not constitute an adjudication. … In this respect, she had no right, privilege or immunity in jeopardy. See Sergi v. Sch.

State of Texas v. Alexandra Alvarez, Joshua LaFountain, and Dr. Christine Ellis, D.D.S.

Texas Court of Appeals, 15th District · Apr 7, 2026

In the State’s prior appeal challenging the denial of its plea to the jurisdiction, the State argued that there was no showing that “the TMFPA clearly and unambiguously waives sovereign immunity to permit their claims against … Kitsap Physicians Servs., 163 F.3d 516, 525 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that “firsthand knowledge” is needed to establish direct knowledge).

People v. Gibson

165 Cal. App. 2d 685 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 4, 1958

The question was apparently asked in an effort to prove that the statements made by Gibson to the investigating officers were elicited by means of promises of immunity. … Christensen’s apartment, the fingerprint evidence clearly established Gibson’s presence at the scene. The fact that Mrs.

Racalbuto v. Redmond

46 A.D.3d 1051 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 13, 2007

Supreme Court granted the motion, finding that defendant was entitled to qualified immunity for its highway planning decisions. Plaintiffs appeal. … Because defendant established its entitlement to summary *1052 judgment, we affirm.

Russell v. Hertz Corp.

139 Ill. App. 3d 11 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 10, 1985

In the present case, plaintiffs failed to establish a sufficient factual basis to support their claim. … The Avis agreement clearly includes a tax on the cost of collision damage waiver.

Augustin Rivera, Jr., Teresa Ereon Giltner, Harold Odom, Barbara Ellis, Anna M. McKim, Cynthia Eva Hujar Orr, C. Alfred MacKenzie, Dwaine M. Massey, and Carlos R. Soltero, in Their Official Capacities as Members of the Texas Board of Law Examiners v. Deborah Sonnenschein

Texas Court of Appeals, 15th District · Jan 23, 2025

The Third Court of Appeals reversed and dismissed all her claims with prejudice except for the two equal protection claims, holding them insufficient to establish a waiver of immunity as pleaded but allowing her a chance … That individual graduates are qualified to sit for a bar exam is not the same as finding a law school qualified for accreditation. See CAL.

Southworth v. State

62 A.D.2d 731 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 2, 1978

The trial court was clearly in error in holding that one convicted of driving while intoxicated was automatically ineligible for the Onondaga program. Quite the opposite was true. … The soundness of the established method of operation is beyond review (Kelly v State of New York, 57 AD2d 320, 328, 332 ) for the reason that such review would constitute a judicial incursion into the immunized area of basic

Texas Department of Transportation v. Glenda Reid

Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas) · Aug 22, 2019

Likewise, whether undisputed evidence of jurisdictional facts establishes a trial court’s jurisdiction is also a question of law. Id. … Sovereign immunity protects The State of Texas and its agencies, such as TxDOT, from lawsuits for damages unless immunity has been waived. Texas Dept. of Transp. v. York, 284 S.W.3d 844, 846 (Tex. 2009) (per curiam).

Kaminski v. Semple

Connecticut Appellate Court · Mar 17, 2020

The plaintiff does not clearly address the immunity arguments regarding Semple. The parties were heard on the motion on July 30, 2018. … the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.’’

Towery v. State of California

California Court of Appeal · Aug 10, 2017

Civil Code section 52.1 does not address the immunity established by Government Code section 844.6. … 42 United States Code section 1983 unless the officer has violated a ‗clearly established‘ constitutional right.‖ (Venegas II, supra, 153 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1241–1242, quoting Saucier v.

Patrick Laselva v. City of Boston

Massachusetts Superior Court · Sep 20, 2021

To establish tort immunity under Section 17C, therefore, the Defendant must demonstrate each of four specific things: -8- (1) That the City owns the land on which the Plaintiff’s injury occurred; (2) That the Plaintiff was … The City Engaged in No Conduct That Was Wilful, Wanton or Reckless The summary judgment record demonstrating that the City qualifies for the tort immunity conferred by the Recreational Use Statute, the Plaintiff’s claims

Powell v. Milwaukee Area Technical College District Board

225 Wis. 2d 794 · Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · Mar 23, 1999

We affirm the trial court's ruling, concluding that, after applying the legal tests to the undisputed facts, Zauner was a loaned employee of MATC engaged in a discretionary act which qualified him for immunity pursuant to … Zauner and MATC were immune from suit pursuant to § 893.80, Stats.

Wheeler v. Boston Housing Authority

34 Mass. App. Ct. 36 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jan 25, 1993

L. c. 258, § 10(6), if the defendant’s conduct in this case qualifies as a discretionary function. Commesso v. Hingham Hous. Authy., 399 Mass. 805, 807 (1987). Ayala v. Boston Hous. … the lights at night — actions which were ruled to be clearly discretionary under the Federal Tort Claims Act); Marbley v.