Case law

Steinmetz v. Missouri Highway & Transportation Commission

645 S.W.2d 36 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Nov 9, 1982

While the suit was pending against all defendants, the Commission filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that it was immune from liability under the doctrine of sovereign immunity as set forth in § 537.600 and … Under Vinson , Steinmetz clearly retained her claim against the Commission.

Surette v. Galiardo

323 So. 2d 53 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Nov 21, 1975

Our review of the present record does not reflect that the privileged character of the document was clearly established so as to bring the report within the protection recognized in Sligar v. Tucker, supra . … of the language contained in sec. 455.06, infra. [3] In this regard the facts are clearly distinguishable from the decision in Arnold v.

Richie, Richie & Oberle, L.L.P. v. Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Ass'n

928 So. 2d 15 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Dec 22, 2005

LIGA correctly counters that the blanket immunity found in LSA-R.S. 22:1391 is broader than that granted to the State and state agencies pursuant to LSA-R.S. 9:2798.1, which only provides qualified immunity for discretionary … These contractual relationships clearly do not encompass the selection of attorneys to represent LIGA. This argument is without merit.

Riscatti v. Prime Properties Ltd. Partnership

2012 Ohio 2941 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 28, 2012

Chapter 2744 {¶21} The Supreme Court set forth a three-tiered analysis to determine whether a political subdivision is immune from tort liability: the first tier is to establish immunity under R.C. 2744.02(A)(1) … These policy considerations apply equally whether the immunity in question is based on R.C. Chapter 2744 or another provision of the law, including federal qualified immunity.

Laws v. Handy

Superior Court of Delaware · Jul 21, 2017

the absence of only one of these elements to defeat qualified immunity under Section 4001.19 D. … Plaintiffs are required to establish one of three possible avenues of relief in order to defeat the Licensing Supervisor’s qualified immunity under Section 4001:31 31 See supra n. 20.

Schnupp v. Port Authority of Allegheny County

710 A.2d 1235 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 2, 1998

establishes that Appellees violated Schnupp’s federal and state civil rights. … The record in Schnupp’s case clearly indicates that at the least, genuine issues of material fact remain pending as to whether Appellees, while acting under the color of state law, committed acts which deprived Schnupp of

CHRISTINA FORESTER v. CHRYSTAL MAY

Missouri Court of Appeals · Nov 22, 2022

Thus, Forester is entitled to a reversal of the trial court's dismissal only if May's defense of official immunity is not clearly established by the petition. See id. … Point 1: May's Affirmative Defense of Official Immunity Is Not Clearly Established by Forester's Petition "Official immunity protects public officials sued in their individual capacities

Chapman v. City of Quitman

954 So. 2d 468 · Court of Appeals of Mississippi · Mar 20, 2007

While a victim's criminal contribution to his own injury certainly qualifies a governmental entity for immunity under this provision, Chapman apparently overlooks the fact that, in the absence of criminal activity on the … The common law clearly indicates that lawful authority is not limited to official law enforcement, but extends to those whose rights are or may be injured and who seek to protect those rights.

Driscoll v. State of New York

2018 NY Slip Op 2694 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 19, 2018

immunity. … For highway safety and design decisions, defendant "is accorded a qualified immunity from liability arising out of a highway planning decision" ( Friedman v State of New York , 67 NY2d 271, 283 [1986]).

Gilliland v. City of Pleasanton

California Court of Appeal · Nov 19, 2025

As relevant here, the court held that the City was not statutorily immune from suit. … City is entitled to immunity.

Palcsey v. Tepper

71 N.J. Super. 294 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 5, 1962

Our sister state of Pennsylvania has, however, definitely and clearly spoken regarding the matter sub judice. … In Johnson the Pennsylvania Supreme Court established clearly the principle that when the policy reasons for the imposition of an interspousal immunity from suit no longer exist, such a suit may be maintained.

Lawrence v. State Board of Education

140 Conn. App. 773 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Feb 19, 2013

The principle that the state cannot be sued without its consent, or sovereign immunity, is well established under our case law. ... … In making this determination, this court has recognized the well established principle that statutes in derogation of sovereign immunity should be strictly construed. . . .

Gagnon v. Village of Cooperstown, N.Y.

137 N.Y.S.3d 193 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 3, 2020

Under the doctrine of judicial immunity, a judge is immune from civil liability for any acts that he or she performs in the exercise of his or her judicial function ( see Mosher-Simons v County of Allegany , 99 NY2d 214, … [FN3] As for the second element, not all types of [*2]terminations will qualify as "favorable"; however, a termination, including a dismissal in the interest of justice, may be favorable to the plaintiff if it is "not inconsistent

the City of Houston v. Atser, L.P.

Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Apr 5, 2012

“Sovereign immunity encompasses two principles: immunity from suit and immunity from liability.” Gen. Servs . Comm’n v. Little-Tex Insulation Co., Inc. , 39 S.W.3d 591, 594 (Tex. 2001). … It was not premised upon immunity from suit, and therefore it did not “clearly challenge” the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction. See Thomas , 207 S.W.3d at 339 .

D. Sobat and E. Sobat v. The Borough of Midland ~ Appeal of: E. Sobat

141 A.3d 618 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 9, 2016

to governmental immunity. … To qualify for an exception, a plaintiff must prove that: (1) the damages would be recoverable under common law or a statute against a person unprotected by immunity; and (2) the negligent act of the local agency or its

Kirk v. State

124 Utah Adv. Rep. 66 · Court of Appeals of Utah · Dec 27, 1989

A plaintiff cannot establish negligence without first establishing the existence of such a duty. Id. … Governmental immunity may be waived, however, where a plaintiff establishes a “negligent act or omission of an employee committed within the scope of his employment." Utah Code Ann. § 63-30-10 (1) (1989).

Lawson v. Superior Court

180 Cal. App. 4th 1372 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 11, 2010

Thus, the Tort Claims Act “establishes the basic rules that public entities are immune from liability except as provided by statute ([Gov. Code,] § 815, subd. … the State’s liability for whatever negligence Esperanza establishes as to Center Point.

Feeney v. County of Delaware

150 A.D.3d 1355 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 4, 2017

To establish the existence of such a duty, four elements establishing a special relationship must be shown: “(1) an assumption by the [governmental entity], through promises or actions, of an affirmative duty to act on behalf … This doctrine “recognizes that police protection is best left within the discretion of the governmental entity,” whose policymakers are the “most expert and qualified to render informed, deliberate decisions on implementing

Komlosi v. Cuomo

99 A.D.3d 458 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 9, 2012

The jury was then instructed about Fudenberg’s affirmative defense of qualified immunity. … It concerns whether Fudenberg was protected by a qualified immunity.

Cosentino v. Fuller

California Court of Appeal · May 28, 2015

The IGRA requires a tribe’s gaming ordinance to establish a licensing system for all “primary management officials and key employees of the gaming enterprise.” … The Court of Appeal reversed, concluding the record failed to establish the defendants qualified as tribal officials or acted within the scope of their official authority.