Case law

Flood v. Silfies

933 A.2d 1072 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 2, 2007

The Supreme Court then noted that the criteria for establishing local agency immunity changed as a result of its decision in Sphere Drake, which broadened the factors that must be analyzed in determining whether an entity … Appellees assert that the test for determining whether a volunteer fire company is entitled to immunity under the PSTCA was established in Guinn , and it was not modified or overruled by either Sphere Drake or Christy .

Fosket v. City of Dixon

398 S.W.3d 571 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Apr 4, 2013

We will not disturb a trial court’s denial of a motion to amend a pleading unless the decision is clearly erroneous. Id. … Id. *574 The required elements to establish the dangerous-condition exception to sovereign immunity are statutorily mandated and are-found in § 537.600.1(2).

TRICOLI v. WATTS Et Al.

336 Ga. App. 837 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Mar 30, 2016

The Georgia RICO Act does not express any waiver of sovereign immunity. As noted above, OCGA § 50-21-25 (a) clearly states that the GTCA is the exclusive remedy for any torts committed by state officers and employees. … In conclusion, because Tricoli failed to establish a written enforceable employment contract that would avoid sovereign immunity, and because Tricoli’s tort claims were exclusively governed and barred by the GTCA, the trial

Tyler v. Touro Infirmary

207 So. 2d 235 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Feb 5, 1968

qualified to perform an act which may be performed only by such a specialist. … Under the routine surgical procedure established by the hospital staff the nurses were required to take that count in the manner so established, including the taking of a count out of the doctor’s presence prior to his entrance

City of Philadelphia v. Patton

148 Pa. Commw. 141 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 19, 1992

The City disingenuously argues that the enactment of the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, Act of November 26, 1978, P.L. 1399, formerly 53 P.S. §§ 5311.101-5311.803, establishing the statutory bar of governmental immunity … Id., 525 Pa. at 9 , 574 A.2d at 1044 . 4 An entire reading of the McHugh decision, however, clearly demonstrates that it does not support the City’s contention.

Pettit v. Namie

931 A.2d 790 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 10, 2007

The District Court granted the prosecutors’ motions for summary judgment and dismissed the suit on the grounds the prosecutors were protected by qualified immunity. … immunity.

Ferrucci v. State

42 A.D.2d 359 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 25, 1973

On September 10, 1937, upon a petition of his sister and a certificate of two qualified examiners, he was committed to said institution pursuant to an order of the Dutchess County Judge adjudging *361 him to be insane. … The operation of a State institution is clearly governmental and subject to governmental and administrative decisions, and the State has not waived its immunity from liability resulting from said decisions (Young v.

Karangelen v. Snyder

40 Md. App. 393 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 13, 1978

The only issue is whether the appellee is entitled to the protection of governmental immunity. … Accordingly, he is protected by a qualified immunity against civil liability for non-malicious acts performed within the scope of his authority. Carder v. Steiner, 225 Md. 271 , 170 A. 2d 220 (1961); Clark v.

Faigenbaum v. Oakland Medical Center

143 Mich. App. 303 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 3, 1985

While Ross clearly reaffirmed the pre-Ross rule that a proprietary function is not entitled to governmental immunity, proprietary function is defined as any activity conducted primarily for pecuniary profit. … Similar orders were issued in six other immunity cases which were to be argued with Ross. Clearly, the practicing bar was on notice that the former rules Concerning governmental immunity would be changed.

Bluhm v. Blanck & Gargaro, Inc.

62 Ohio App. 451 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 10, 1939

The obligation of the city of Lakewood to respond in damages for negligence is the only subject of discussion in the Hutchinson case, supra, but all of the other questions were clearly before the court. … If the immunity which the city enjoys as announced in Hutchinson v.

Maloney v. City of Philadelphia

111 Pa. Commw. 634 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 15, 1987

In his appeal, Maloney contends the facts of the case establish a cause of action which falls within the real property exception to immunity provided for in 42 Pa. C. S. §8542(b)(3). … He then contends this makes the scaffolding a fixture and qualifies it as real property in the possession of the City.

Taylor v. Bi-County Health Department

2011 IL App (5th) 90475 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 4, 2011

established by the DHHS [United States Department of Health and Human Services] Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, unless (a) *** I deem such compliance to be medically inappropriate; or (b) the particular … Without any argument or evidence to show control, the plaintiffs cannot establish the special duty exception to the public duty rule.

Priestly v. Doucette

1 Mass. L. Rptr. 415 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Dec 21, 1993

Qualified immunity applies to civil rights violations as well as invasion of privacy claims. Duarte, supra at 44 . … If the law was clearly established and the supervisor failed to prove extraordinary circumstances for justifying a lack of knowledge of the law, the immunity defense fails. Dobos v. Driscoll, 404 Mass. 634, 646 (1989).

Monaghan v. Holy Trinity Church

275 N.J. Super. 594 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 14, 1994

that the Legislature clearly made available to the parish. … This statutorily established public policy is consistent with the Legislature's expressed intent in N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-10 that the immunity granted by the Act is to be liberally construed so as to afford immunity to the greatest

the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center v. Vicki M. King

417 S.W.3d 1 · Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · Jun 27, 2013

Dec. 20, 2012, orig. proceeding) (“For expert testimony to be admissible, the proponent of the testimony must establish that the expert is qualified and that his testimony is relevant and based upon a reliable foundation. … Because the jurisdictional evidence conclusively established that King’s claims do not fall within the waiver of immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act, and King failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact, we also

Droscha v. Shepherd

931 N.E.2d 882 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 3, 2010

In determining whether a person is entitled to the benefit of judicial immunity, we use the functional approach established by the United States Supreme Court and look to the nature of the function performed, not the identity … Here, there is no dispute that the Association established the panel of arbitrators.

Rebecca Amador v. the City of Irving, Texas

Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas) · Mar 20, 2020

Accordingly, we must determine whether Amador met her pleading burden to establish a legislative waiver of governmental immunity. … (“The DTPA does not clearly and unambiguously provide for a waiver of immunity from suit for governmental units.”). 8 See CIV.

Kayfetz v. State of California

156 Cal. App. 3d 491 · California Court of Appeal · May 29, 1984

Further, the “Action Report” publication was authorized as part of the statutory scheme and was clearly “within the scope of [defendant’s] employment,” within the meaning of section 821.6. … Because we find that the defendants are immune from suit for the action in question, we need not decide other issues raised by the parties, principally whether Civil Code section 47 grants absolute, qualified or any privilege

in the Interest of C. S. and I. P.

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Jan 11, 2007

Based on the adoption subsidy, the Stewarts do not meet the financial requirements to qualify as an adoptive placement for the children. … However, all of the cases cited by the ad litem rely on the following unique provision of the Texas Constitution: "it shall be the duty of the Legislature of the State to establish and make suitable provision for the support

Whittney Ford v. Jim Davis, in His Official Capacity as Interim President of the University of Texas at Austin and the University of Texas at Austin

Texas Court of Appeals, 15th District · Nov 20, 2025

None of that information even qualifies as correspondence between me, as the requestor, and the governmental body, here U.T. Austin. … Furthermore, all that is required to waive immunity under Tex.