Case law

Robert McKay v. Choctaw County, Mississippi, through the Choctaw County Board of Supervisors

Court of Appeals of Mississippi · Feb 23, 2021

The MTCA provides a governmental entity with immunity from any claim . . . … evidence established that Miller acted in reckless disregard of the safety of others and that Miller’s “conduct was a contributing factor to the accident in question.”

People v. Sipress

51 Cal. App. 3d 98 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 2, 1975

Concluding that the record does not establish that Health and Safety Code section 11367 so completely immunized the witness from all possibility of prosecution as to foreclose the possibility that his answers to the questions … that it clearly appears from a consideration of all the circumstances in the case that an answer to the challenged question cannot possibly have a tendency to incriminate the witness.”

Fulk v. Roberts

164 Ill. App. 3d 194 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 9, 1987

Defendants contend on appeal that qualified immunity bars an action against them as private individuals. We agree. … As the defendants acted in good faith, qualified immunity barred this action for damages against defendants as private individuals.

Greenwood v. City of L.A.

California Court of Appeal · Mar 27, 2023

(the Act) “establishes the basic rules that public entities are immune from [non- contractual] liability except as provided by statute (§ 815, subd. … Neither the statutory language nor case law interpreting it suggests a defendant must qualify for immunity under both section 855.4 subdivision (a) and section 855.4 subdivision (b) in order to be immune.

Marion v. City of Boca Raton

47 So. 3d 334 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Oct 20, 2010

Neilson, 419 So.2d 1071, 1075 (Fla.1982): Commercial Carrier established that discretionary, judgmental, planning-level decisions were immune from suit, but that operational-level decisions were not so immune. … Such a large intersection as present in this case would qualify as being inherently dangerous.

Thomas Haggerty and Cathy Haggerty v. Anonymous Party 1, Anonymous Party 2, and Anonymous Party 3

998 N.E.2d 286 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 20, 2013

AP1 made a prima facie showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists as to its immunity; however, the Haggertys have not established the contrary. … AP2 and AP3 made a prima facie showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists as to their immunity; the Haggertys failed to establish the contrary.

Kenney v. Weaving

123 Conn. App. 211 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Aug 10, 2010

The principle that the state cannot be sued without its consent, or sovereign immunity, is well established under our case law. ... … The third criterion, that the state clearly is the real party in interest, also is satisfied.

In re the Risk Level Determination of C.M.

578 N.W.2d 391 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Jun 2, 1998

Here, the police publicly distributed a notice that clearly suggested that relator had been convicted of sexually assaulting C.B., when in fact he had not been. … Fischley, 557 N.W.2d 328, 332-33 (Minn.1997) (noting that immunities are meant to immunize the government against suit rather than merely against liability).

Clapper v. Little Sandy Creek Ruritan Club, Inc.

2022 Ohio 1920 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 6, 2022

To establish an order affects a substantial right, the appellant must establish that, in the absence of immediate review of the order, he or she will be denied effective relief in the future. … Moritz, 39 Ohio App.3d 132, 529 N.E.2d 1290 (10th Dist.1987) (The denial of a motion for summary judgment in a case brought under Section 1983, Title 42, U.S.Code, which motion is based on a claim of qualified immunity

Theron and Sherry Pfantz v. Dr. Dwight McKenna in His Capacity as the Coroner, Orleans Parish Coroner's Office, and Abc Insurance Company

Louisiana Court of Appeal · Oct 22, 2025

Second, “the appellate court must further determine that the record establishes that the finding is clearly wrong (manifestly erroneous).” Id. … Immunity The Coroner argues that pursuant to La.

Kee v. State Highway Administration

68 Md. App. 473 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 10, 1986

in situations where the legislature had clearly intended to waive it. … As we explained earlier, the legislature clearly manifested its intent to waive immunity in this type of action if fiscally possible.

Christopher Karone Turner v. Tdcj-Id

Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana) · Jan 7, 2011

Similarly, Turner‟s complaints, which complain about the use of information in the TDCJ‟s policy manuals, do not qualify as use of personal property. … Turner has failed to establish that the Texas Tort Claims Act waives sovereign immunity concerning his state law claims.

Scott Cooper v. City of Reinbeck, Reinbeck Telecommunications Utility, and Tim Johnson, Mayor of the City of Reinbeck

Court of Appeals of Iowa · May 1, 2019

Because Cooper has not shown a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendants acted with actual malice or otherwise abused their immunity under qualified privilege, we affirm the district court’s grant of … Qualified Immunity A qualified privilege from liability for defamation applies to statements of members of subordinate legislative bodies if those statements are “made in the performance of their official duties

Watson v. Division of State Police

Superior Court of Delaware · Aug 4, 2025

I, § 9) (“the doctrine of sovereign immunity was not judicially created in Delaware. It was established by the State Constitution.”); Turnbull v. Fink, 668 A.2d 1370, 1376–77 (Del. 1995) (citing Raughley v. … to overcome Defendant's entitlement to immunity as established in the DSTCA. Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be grated.”) (footnote omitted). 13 See, e.g., J.L. v.

Sexton v. City of Chicago

976 N.E.2d 526 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 16, 2012

Loumiet, who was qualified as an expert witness on accident reconstruction and highway safety. … Thus, despite the majority’s contention to the contrary, it is unreasonable to conclude that the City had immunity based on an initial installation when the evidence clearly establishes subsequent improvements

Steward v. Magnolia

134 N.J. Super. 312 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 28, 1975

[At 241] Thus, despite the substantial erosion of interspousal immunity, there are clearly some areas in which the doctrine is still viable. Paraphrasing what was said in Pearce v. N.J. Highway Authority, 122 N.J. … It clearly does not encompass any immunity available to the employee for a reason other than his public employment, such as an interfamilial relationship.

Oregonian Publishing Co. v. O'LEARY

80 Or. App. 754 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 20, 1986

The court listed “jury deliberations and court conferences” as two examples of judicial proceedings which could be held in private because of “well established * * * tradition.” 289 Or at 284 . … We apply Press-Enterprise II to determine whether there is a qualified right of access.

Lyons v. TERREBONNE PARISH CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT

2010 La.App. 1 Cir. 2258 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jun 10, 2011

clearly on the face of the pleadings. … Because the affirmative defense, which establishes the State’s immunity, appears clearly on the face of the petition, the trial court properly sustained the State’s exception raising the objection of no cause of action and

State v. Lueck

212 S.W.3d 630 · Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Oct 17, 2006

Sovereign immunity is waived only when the legislature has clearly and unambiguously expressed that intent. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 311.034 (West Supp.2005); Texas Dep’t of Transp. v. … (‘We believe the first sentence of section 554.0035 ... clearly waive[s] immunity from suit, while the second sentence of section 554.0035, by its terms, waives immunity from liability.”) (emphasis in original).

McDowell v. City of Detroit

264 Mich. App. 337 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 6, 2005

The trial court specifically delineated those claims that it found to *344 involve governmental immunity and identified only plaintiffs tort claims. Clearly, the tort claims are within our scope of review. … The assertion of revenues is not the establishment of a profit.