Case law

City of Dayton v. Gates

126 S.W.3d 288 · Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont) · Jan 8, 2004

Or, conceivably, the claims could involve negligent implementation of established requirements. The Gates’ pleadings do not state clearly the basis for their claims. … We conclude the language in section 101.062(b) does not clearly and unambiguously waive governmental immunity.

Dextrom v. Wexford County

287 Mich. App. 406 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 9, 2010

Defendants argued that (1) the landfill operation qualified as a governmental function, (2) defendants had not operated the landfill for the primary purpose of making a profit, and (3) user fees had always “almost exclusively … expert testimony, MRE 702, provides: If the court determines that scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified

Brewer v. BD. OF TRUSTEES OF UNIV. OF ILL.

339 Ill. App. 3d 1074 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 17, 2003

Illinois has not clearly waived sovereign immunity; far from it, Illinois has clearly reinstated sovereign immunity, with the two narrow qualifications the Immunity Act specifies. … The United States Supreme Court held: "[T]he Rhode Island courts have jurisdiction adequate and appropriate under established local law to adjudicate this action.

Kelly v. Hochberg

231 Or. App. 155 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 30, 2009

immunity under that statute. … According to defendant, the statute affords immunity to “recreational” uses, defined by reference to, among other things, hiking, which is a form of clearly recreational travel.

Stewart v. Solutions Community Counseling & Recovery Ctrs., Inc.

2021 Ohio 2635 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 2, 2021

When read in context, the statute refers clearly to harm inflicted on third parties by the mental health patient. … The statute clearly codifies immunity to mental health providers in what would have previously been a common law negligence action.

Podboy v. Fraternal Order of Police

94 P.3d 1226 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Jun 3, 2004

The CGIA establishes immunity from tort actions for public entities and employees who are acting within the course and scope of their employment. Sections 24-10-102, 24-10-105, 24-10-108, 24-10-118, C.R.S.2003. … Although many factors may be relevant in determining whether a worker qualifies as an employee, each factor need not be discussed in every case.

In Re: Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles v. the State of Texas

Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas) · Nov 26, 2024

TBPP also argues that Flowers’s allegations, taken as true, conclusively establish that no waiver of immunity under the Tort Claims Act applies here. … The parties dispute whether Flowers’s pleadings establish a waiver of immunity under this statute.

Alamo Community College District v. Browning Construction Co.

131 S.W.3d 146 · Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · Feb 9, 2004

The court held: “This statutory language does not clearly and unambiguously waive immunity from suit.” Pelzel, 77 S.W.3d at 249 . … The court goes on to cite statutes that do clearly and unambiguously waive immunity from suit. See id.

Satorre v. New Hanover County Board of Commissioners

165 N.C. App. 173 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 6, 2004

The County retained a qualified industrial hygienist to investigate the indoor air quality at the Courthouse and to supervise remediation of any problem areas. … Doe clearly holds that operation of a courthouse pursuant to statute is a governmental function. Doe, 144 N.C. App. at 134 , 547 S.E.2d at 126 .

Thigpen v. Lacombe

2016 La.App. 1 Cir. 1612 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Aug 29, 2017

On appeal, Thigpen does not dispute, and the documents offered by the parties clearly established that Cpt. … In so doing, we focus on the facts established by the documents to determine whether Opt. Lacombe acted with reckless disregard to the safety of others under the immunity protection afforded to him by La. R.S. 32:24D.

Hinson v. Clairemont Community Hospital

218 Cal. App. 3d 1110 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 15, 1990

It is that common to those who are recognized in the profession or trade itself as qualified, and competent to engage in it.” (Id. at § 299A, com. e, p. 74.) … Hinson argued the evidence was relevant to counter Robbins’s evidence “paint[ing] himself ... as a very finely qualified and competent doctor.”

Stevens v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation

89 Pa. Commw. 309 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 17, 1985

The requirements of the statute are clearly written and create a very narrow exception to the defense of sovereign immunity for damages caused by potholes. … The statute clearly requires the “claimant to recover must establish” that the applicable Commonwealth agency, here PennDOT, had actual written notice of the dangerous condition with sufficient time in which to effect repairs

Department of Social & Health Services v. Willis

126 Wash. App. 786 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 11, 2005

While that is true, and while termination of parental rights is a consequence of sufficient gravity to qualify as compulsion, 12 the penalty cases have generally required a showing that a penalty would follow directly, and … In cases where compulsion is present, prior access to counsel would clearly be inadequate.

Massachusetts Department of Correction v. Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination and Pamela Scanlan

Massachusetts Superior Court · Jan 15, 2019

A moving party bears a heavy burden of establishing that an agency's decision is invalid. See Merisme v. Board of Appeals on Motor Vehicle Policies and Bonds, 27 Mass. App. Ct. 470, 474 (1989); Mass. … Applying these requirements, the motion judge correctly concluded that the MCAD decision should be given preclusive effect. -4- [T]he MCAD qualifies as a "court of competent jurisdiction" because it is "a tribunal recognized

VALENZONA v. Carlisle

187 P.3d 593 · Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · Feb 5, 2008

Therefore, "qualified immunity bars claims against state officials in their individual capacities if their conduct did not violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … right that has been allegedly violated, (2) whether that right was so clearly established as to alert a reasonable official to its parameters, and (3) whether a reasonable official could have believed his or her conduct

Agnes Scott College v. Amanda Hartley

Court of Appeals of Georgia · Mar 29, 2013

Hartley’s complaint alleges that a “reasonable investigation” would have established that Hartley was not at the student’s dorm at the time of the alleged assault. … The rationale behind the statutory doctrine of qualified immunity is “to preserve the public employee’s independence of action without fear of lawsuits and to prevent a review of his or her judgment in hindsight.”

Guenther v. Springfield Twp. Trustees

2012 Ohio 203 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 20, 2012

Political-Subdivision Immunity A. … Rather, the crux of the case appears to have been that the court found questions of material fact about whether the Township could re-establish immunity by demonstrating that the actions it took were a matter of judgment

Martin v. Smith

560 S.W.3d 787 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Sep 26, 2018

The appointment of the person in charge is clearly an integral part of the CRO-release process. Here, it is clear that Dr. … Yet performing a traditional judicial function is *793 the polestar in determining whether someone qualifies for judicial immunity. E.g. , Cleavinger v.

Croton v. Gillis

104 Mich. App. 104 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 3, 1981

Defendant, if he had any privilege to comment as he did, had merely a qualified privilege. See New York Times Co v Sullivan, 376 US 254 ; 84 S Ct 710 ; 11 L Ed 2d 686 (1964), and the discussion infra. … Plaintiffs allegations of libel and malice are clearly sufficient to avoid summary judgment based on governmental immunity.

Dougherty v. Torrence

19 Ohio App. 3d 256 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 24, 1984

On an appeal of that decision, the Supreme Court reversed this court, finding that volunteer firemen did qualify for the statutory immunity. … There is merit to Dougherty’s argument that the public is best served when emergency vehicles are clearly and distinctly marked, but it ignores the fact that members of volunteer fire departments do not ordinarily assemble