Case law

in Re Sobeyda L. Smith, Daniel Rebollar, and Mariely Rebollar

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · May 26, 2016

because it did not fall within one of the qualifying subject matters. … Table 22 clearly defines course no. 03580200 as a Career and Technology course. As such, it does not qualify for [ECISD (Local)] 10-point calculations.

Cannarbor Inc v. Department of Treasury

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 7, 2025

The MMMA’s grant of immunity to primary caregivers is found in MCL 333.26424, which states, in relevant part: (b) A primary caregiver who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card … Additionally, the 2011 letter itself clearly stated that the MMMA “does not provide for state-regulated retail stores or dispensaries.”

Blue Ridge Mountain Fisheries, Inc. v. Department of Natural Resources

217 Ga. App. 89 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Mar 16, 1995

The court erred in ruling that under federal law ( 42 USC § 1983 ) defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from plaintiffs’ constitutional claims. … Thus, they are not entitled to qualified immunity. 2. The court erred in granting summary judgment to defendants on plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claim of unlawful seizure, but not on their claim of illegal arrest.

Lakemore v. Schell

2020 Ohio 4453 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 16, 2020

Co., 84 Ohio App.3d 96, 99 (8th Dist.1992). {¶12} “Civ.R. 12(C) clearly confines the trial court’s analysis to the material allegations set forth in the pleadings and any [written instrument] attach[ed] thereto, … This Court has held that while a written instrument attached to a complaint or answer qualifies as part of the pleadings, not every document attached to the pleadings qualifies as a written instrument under Civ.R. 10(C)

Barakat v. Matz

271 Ill. App. 3d 662 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 31, 1995

Even per se defamatory statements, however, may not be actionable if immunized by absolute privilege (Layne v. Builders Plumbing Supply Co. (1991), 210 Ill. … First, the content of the reports at issue clearly evaluates the patients for which the reports were ordered.

Dallas Area Rapid Transit v. Oncor Electric Delivery Co.

331 S.W.3d 91 · Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas) · Dec 22, 2010

In contrast, immunity from suit bars an action against the state unless the state expressly waives immunity or consents to the suit. Id. The party bringing suit must establish the state’s consent or waiver. Id. … The source of the PUC’s power is clearly stated in the Public Utility Regulatory Act (“PURA”), which states in part, “The purpose of this subtitle is to establish a comprehensive and adequate regulatory system for electric

Leaf v. Freeman

499 N.W.2d 54 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Apr 27, 1993

Immunity Appellants also contend that the district court erroneously found that respondents were entitled to qualified immunity. … Case law clearly holds, however, that if appellants have established an official-capacity suit, neither the local government nor the officials named in the suit is entitled to a dismissal based on a qualified immunity defense

Com. v. Markun, S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 27, 2017

As the trial court notes, while the statute clearly places the burden of proving immunity upon the defendant, the statute is silent as to the timing and mechanism through which a defendant may seek immunity. … establish the other statutory requirements listed in section 780- 113.7.

Walker v. Wake Cty. Sheriff's Dep't

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 2, 2022

¶ 14 Sheriff Defendants have failed to establish that, based solely on the pleadings and as a matter of law, qualified privilege precludes liability for Curry’s email to Crump. … “[A] defendant seeking to establish public official immunity must demonstrate that all three of [these] factors are present.” McCullers v. Lewis, 265 N.C.

Campbell v. Campbell

294 N.J. Super. 18 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 12, 1996

In this case the plaintiff argues that the domestic violence order has established a "special relationship" between her and the Plainfield police and that therefore the statute does not provide immunity. … [t]he absolute immunity of section 3-5 applies to non-action or the failure to act in connection with the enforcement of the law, and the qualified immunity of section 3-3 applies to acts constituting enforcement of the law

Dopkeen v. Whitaker

926 N.E.2d 794 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 10, 2010

The court concluded, "Defendant was acting within the scope of his authority to terminate the plaintiff and such actions are protected by absolute immunity, *797 and public official immunity." Plaintiff now appeals. … We note that this case also raises the issue whether the doctrine of sovereign immunity precluded jurisdiction in this case.

Mueller v. the Florida Bar

390 So. 2d 449 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Nov 19, 1980

The question is whether The Florida Bar and its duly authorized agents enjoy immunity from liability for defamation or malicious prosecution by virtue of an absolute privilege. The answer is a qualified yes. … It was clearly within the scope of the authority of staff counsel to advise not only appellant's clients but also his prospective clients of appellant's disbarment. The latter category consists of the public at large.

Wissel v. Ohio High School Athletic Assn.

78 Ohio App. 3d 529 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 4, 1992

Ill OHSAA argued below and continues to insist on appeal that it is immune from tort liability under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. … Clearly, the sins charged are of omission, not commission.

Lámar v. Thomas Fowler Trucking, Inc.

956 So. 2d 911 · Court of Appeals of Mississippi · Apr 4, 2006

This is the principle of "up-the-line immunity," and it has become well established in Mississippi law. ¶ 21. In Mosley v. … Such an outcome is clearly contrary to the express language of section 71-3-9.

Skypark Aviation, LLC v. Lind

523 S.W.3d 869 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jun 22, 2017

immunity. … Furthermore, Appellants have not cited any authority establishing that a private cause of action exists for claims of this type or that governmental immunity for claims of this type has been waived.

McNeill v. Durham County ABC Board

87 N.C. App. 50 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 1, 1987

Radtke, a neurologist who treated plaintiff, was not qualified to give an opinion as to the angle and force of the blow to plaintiffs head is likewise meritless. Dr. … likewise waive their immunity by purchasing such insurance.

William C Reichenbach Co. v. State

94 Mich. App. 323 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 18, 1979

The independence of such universities will not be permitted to "thwart the clearly established public policy” in this state. Id., at 139. … We conclude that the payment bonding statute does not represent "a clearly established public policy” in this state.

Strata v. Williams

94 La.App. 4 Cir. 1150 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Nov 30, 1994

The party challenging the constitutionality of a statute bears the burden of proving clearly that the legislation is invalid or unconstitutional. … The opponent must establish clearly and convincingly that the constitutional aim was to deny to the legislature the power to enact the legislation. Id. at 388 . (Emphasis added).

Vreeman v. Jansma

Court of Appeals of Iowa · Jun 21, 2023

We agree that standing up a domesticated animal that is down does not fall under one of these specific categories of domesticated animal activity.1 We further agree with Vreeman’s observation that the statute establishes … a finite list of covered activities.2 1 Vreeman acknowledges that the closest qualifying language would be section 673.1(3)(k) but argues that getting a downed heifer back on its feet does not fall within the plain

Midland States Life Insurance v. Cardillo

59 Mass. App. Ct. 531 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Oct 9, 2003

Sovereign immunity. The Lottery’s first defense to Midland’s action rested on sovereign immunity. … It has long been established that “the Commonwealth cannot be impleaded in its own courts except by its own consent, clearly manifested by act of the Legislature,” Nash v.