Case law

Hickory Creek Special Utility District and the Following Persons in Their Official Capacities as Officers and Members of the HCSUD Board of Directors, Brad White, Boyd Roberts, Tammy Cross, Brandon Lamm, Frances Caplinger, Phillip George, and Kevin Richey v. Henry Mastellar

Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana) · Aug 29, 2025

“The plaintiff—the nonmovant— survives the plea to the jurisdiction only by showing that the statute ‘clearly and affirmatively waive[s] immunity’ and by also ‘negating any provisions that create exceptions to, and thus … “The Texas takings clause—Article 1, Section 17 of the Texas Constitution—waives [Hickory Creek’s] immunity and establishes the courts’ jurisdiction, but only if [Mastellar] has alleged a legally viable takings claim.”

State v. Kierin M. Dennis

Court of Appeals of South Carolina · Oct 30, 2024

The court also concluded Dennis failed to establish the elements of self-defense. Thus, the court denied Dennis immunity under the Act. Dennis was tried in October of 2016. … However, the court qualified its decision as follows: A number of factors lead us to that conclusion.

Miguel v. Guess

112 Wash. App. 536 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 18, 2002

He cites Bator for the proposition that “[q]ualified immunity protects state officials from section 1983 liability if their conduct does not violate ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … However, Bator held that no qualified immunity existed to protect the defendants from a suit alleging sexual harassment.

Manning v. Commonwealth

144 A.3d 252 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 27, 2016

To defeat the defense of sovereign immunity, the plaintiff must also establish that his or her allegations fall within one of the nine enumerated exceptions to sovereign immunity set forth in Section 8522(b) of the Code. … Prior decisions of Pennsylvania state courts, however, clearly establish that DOT owed no such duty to Manning. 6 42 Pa. C.S. § 8522(b)(4) provides: Exceptions to sovereign immunity.

Willie Jones & Jeanette Crummedyo v. City of Missouri City, Texas

Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Aug 31, 2026

Here, Missouri City argues that it is entitled to summary judgment on the Homeowners’ claims because it conclusively established its immunity defense. … And they did not sue any particular officials under the ultra-vires exception to immunity. Thus, their claims do not fall within the scope of any of the express waivers of immunity.

Everhart v. Board of Education of Roseville Community Schools

108 Mich. App. 218 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 28, 1981

The allegations clearly claim that the individuals were negligent in the performance of their discretionary governmental duties. No ultra vires acts are alleged. … The allegations, if true, would establish that the supervisors were negligent while acting in the scope of their employment and, thus, immune from liability under the governmental immunity statute.

Estate of Earley Ex Rel. Earley v. Haywood County Department of Social Services

204 N.C. App. 338 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 9, 2010

Defendant argues that the doctrine of governmental immunity establishes a complete defense to Plaintiff’s wrongful death- claim. … However, this Court previously construed similar insurance contract provisions as not establishing a waiver of governmental immunity.

Vargo v. Sauer

215 Mich. App. 389 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 9, 1996

Statutes are presumably constitutional and should be so construed unless their unconstitutionality is clearly apparent. … Moreover, even if it were established that a contract existed between msu and St.

Horton v. City of Dayton

53 Ohio App. 3d 68 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 20, 1988

Dayton’s police officer testified that he was responding to an emergency call, and there seems to be no doubt that there was a dispatch over the radio that would qualify as an emergency call. … Horton contends that the police officer’s own deposition established, as a matter of law, that the police officer had failed to maintain an assured clear distance ahead, so that he was negligent as a matter of law.

Good Samaritan Hosp. Ass'n, Inc. v. Simon

370 So. 2d 1174 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 14, 1979

Here, the legislature clearly intended to allow actions such as that filed by respondent. … Clearly, one of the broad purposes of Section 768.40 was to establish a high quality of health care in Florida by encouraging the formation of medical review committees to monitor the performance of physicians and other health

O'HAVER v. Blair

619 S.W.2d 467 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jul 22, 1981

In our view the appellee did not conclusively establish all the essential elements required for immunity under § 21.-912(b). … Summary judgment in these cases was clearly warranted. See Barr v.

Florida Power and Light Company v. Brown

274 So. 2d 558 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Mar 13, 1973

We do not believe that the negotiations between F.P.L. and the owners of the Fashion Square [2] resulted in a "contract" as was contemplated by the statute in order for F.P.L. to qualify as a "contractor" subject to immunity … contract work to a subcontractor or subcontractors, all of the employees of such contractor and subcontractor or subcontractors engaged on such contract work shall be deemed to be employed in one and the same business or establishment

Herman v. Greene County Fair Board

112 Pa. Commw. 615 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 21, 1988

Summary judgment is properly granted where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party has clearly established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Kuehner v. Parsons, 107 Pa. … We believe the Legislature has clearly precluded the imposition of liability on itself or its local agencies for acts of third parties by its language of §8541, supra, and that it has not seen fit to waive immunity for these

City of Emory, Texas, Appellant/Cross-Appellee v. Scott Lusk and Lisa Lusk, Appellees/Cross-Appellants

Texas Court of Appeals, 12th District (Tyler) · Jan 30, 2009

Governmental Immunity In Texas, governmental immunity has two components: immunity from liability, which bars enforcement of a judgment against a governmental entity, and immunity from suit, which bars suit against … Further, the legislature has established governmental functions for which a municipality 3 enjoys immunity unless immunity has been waived under the Texas Tort Claims Act

People of Michigan v. Vernon Bernhardt Tackman Jr

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 2, 2017

Because neither defendant qualified for the MMMA’s § 4 immunity, the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing defendants’ cases on this basis. … Because Horner did not qualify for immunity, no agent of his may claim immunity derived from Horner. The parties raise additional arguments that were never addressed by the trial court.

Alvie Campbell and Julie Campbell v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for Lender and Lender's Successors and Assigns Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Stephen C. Porter David Seybold Ryan Bourgeois Matthew Cunningham, and John Doe 1-100

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · May 18, 2012

The role of MERS was clearly established in the deed of trust: Borrower understands and agrees that MERS holds any legal title to the interests granted by Borrower in this Security Interest, but, if necessary to comply with … This qualified immunity generally applies even if conduct is improper in the context of the underlying lawsuit. Renfroe v. Jones & Assocs. , 947 S.W.2d 285, 288 (Tex. App.

Clear Lake City Water Authority v. MCR Corporation

Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Mar 11, 2010

Texas courts are not required to use these aids in determining whether the Legislature clearly and unambiguously waived governmental immunity. … Similarly, MCR's pleadings allege sufficient facts to qualify this case as a waiver of sovereign immunity under section 271.152.

City of Lewiston v. Lindsey

123 Idaho 851 · Idaho Court of Appeals · Mar 3, 1993

“The planning/operational test provides immunity for planning activities—activities which involve the establishment of plans, specifications and schedules where there is room for policy judgment and decisions. … This section clearly places a prospective time limit, from the date of the summons, on the compensatory relief available in ordinary condemnation proceedings where the government acts to condemn property in the exercise of

Harris County Fresh Water Supply District No. 61 v. Magellan Pipeline Company, L. P. and V-Tex Logistics LLC

Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Apr 19, 2022

The District further contends that (1) the Legislature has not clearly and unambiguously waived the District’s immunity from condemnation suits, and (2) the District did not waive its immunity from suit by entering into … See Denbury Green Pipeline–Texas, 510 S.W.3d at 917 (discussing proof necessary to establish common-carrier status and stating: “[E]vidence establishing a reasonable probability that the pipeline will, at some point after

Dept. of Rev. v. City of Gainesville

859 So. 2d 595 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Nov 26, 2003

The constitutional language clearly requires the use be for a public or municipal purpose before it qualifies for the exemption. … At least in tax exemption cases, however, it has been clearly established that the "governmental-governmental" public purpose standard governs. Id. at 250-51 (footnotes omitted).