Case law

Winona Memorial Foundation of Indianapolis v. Lomax

465 N.E.2d 731 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 25, 1984

On that date, Winona was qualified as a health care provider within the meaning of the Medical Malpractice Act, IND.CODE 16-9.5-2-1. … the legislature intended to overrule the established law.

M.S. v. Nova Southeastern University Inc.

881 So. 2d 614 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 21, 2004

In addition, the evidence established that. Coastal hired and paid the salaries of the physicians. … Plaintiffs and the School Board argue that this provision clearly indicates that the parties did not intend for Nova to act as an agent of the School Board.

Torres v. Department of Correction

50 Conn. Supp. 72 · Connecticut Superior Court · Feb 22, 2006

This court first adopted a version of qualified official immunity in 1920 in Wadsworth v. … By comparison, other jurisdictions more clearly require both foreseeable harm and a foreseeable plaintiff. See, e.g., Mellon Mortgage Co. v.

Smith v. PORTER TP., CLINTON COUNTY

141 Pa. Commw. 244 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 12, 1991

Definitions The following words and phrases when used in this chapter shall have, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the meanings given to them in this section: * * * * * * "Employee.” … damages suffered as a result of Fairview Township’s alleged negligence in failing to hire a competent sewage enforcement officer, failing to ascertain that the individual serving in that capacity was properly trained and qualified

Cook v. Bennett

94 Mich. App. 93 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 5, 1979

Clearly city councils are invested with this authority and their duty runs to the whole public. … A similar problem was addressed in Cole v Rife, 77 Mich App 545 ; 258 NW2d 555 (1977), where defendant police officer was sued for negligence in establishing a road block and then directing plaintiff to proceed into the path

Trabosh v. Washington County

140 Or. App. 159 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 17, 1996

Under that exception, if the partnership performs labor or services under a contract, it must qualify as an independent contractor under ORS 670.600 in order for its partners to be exempt. … It was also the way in which they normally charged other customers for hayrides; those other customers clearly did not have any right to control their performance.

Johnson v. Department of Transportation

245 Ga. App. 839 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Sep 8, 2000

most elementary factual information such as a police report, diagram, or eyewitness testimony establishing the location of the incident or the manner in which it occurred. … Under these circumstances, the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the DOT clearly was proper. No alternative was possible in the complete absence of the necessary elements of proof. Judgment affirmed.

Scheidler v. Cook County Officers Electoral Board

276 Ill. App. 3d 297 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 8, 1995

In their motions, the respondents argued, among other things, that another action was pending between the same parties for the same cause (i.e., the Legg litigation); absolute or qualified immunity protected the various respondents … The Cook County respondents advance the following arguments: (1) the respondent Cook County Officers Electoral Board is immune from the section 1983 claims under the doctrines of absolute judicial immunity and qualified immunity

Board of Education v. Beka Industries, Inc.

190 Md. App. 668 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 26, 2010

State Agency We start initially with the first factor, “whether the entity asserting immunity qualifies for its protection.” Stem, 380 Md. at 700 , 846 A.2d 996 . … Thus, the first factor in the test for assessing whether the doctrine of sovereign immunity applies, whether the entity asserting immunity qualifies for protection, is answered in the affirmative. B.

David R. Smith v. Tennessee National Guard

387 S.W.3d 570 · Court of Appeals of Tennessee · Aug 8, 2012

By filing a motion to dismiss the defendant “‘admits the truth of all of the relevant and material allegations contained in the complaint, but . . . asserts that the allegations fail to establish a cause of action.’” … And, upon his return from TDY in June of 2011 he, in fact, was not rehired by the TNNG in an AGR position. 3.4 LTC Smith was well qualified for return to the AGR, had in the past performed

Davis v. School District

91 Pa. Commw. 27 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 9, 1985

to enter into the swimming pool area and use the swimming pool without proper and adequate supervision; (6) Failing to make said swimming pool safe for plaintiffs’ decedent’s use; (7) Failing to have lifeguards or other qualified … , writing that: The averments in the appellant’s complaint clearly indicate that the gravamen of his action was the alleged negligence of district employees within respect to an activity on district premises. . . .

Ruckman v. Smith

190 N.E.3d 707 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 31, 2022

Chapter 2744 establishes a three-tier analysis to determine whether a political subdivision is immune from liability. Greene Cty. Agricultural Soc. v. … Therefore, we find that appellees did not establish the “in repair” immunity exception under R.C. 2744.02(B)(3).

Knight v. Mississippi Transportation Commission

10 So. 3d 962 · Court of Appeals of Mississippi · Apr 21, 2009

Finally, the duty to maintain highways and place warning signs clearly requires the MTC to consider the policy considerations of doing so. … In other words, “[as] established by precedent of both this Court and the supreme court, where any of the immunities enumerated in section 11^49-9(1) apply, the government is completely immune from the claims arising from

Marvel v. Prison Industries

884 A.2d 1065 · Superior Court of Delaware · Aug 23, 2005

Sovereign immunity will be deemed waived only by a legislative act that clearly evidences an intention to waive such immunity. … The law is well-established that the existence of an insurance policy covering Plaintiffs claim could constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity.

Kevin Glenn Schronk, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Helen Patricia Schronk, and Dustin Schronk v. City of Burleson and Laerdal Medical Corp.

Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco) · Jul 22, 2009

from having to ‘put on their case simply to establish jurisdiction.’” … Rather, even if a waiver of immunity is established under section 101.021, a governmental unit may nonetheless retain its immunity if it meets the requisites of section 101.055 or section 101.062. See Gipson v.

Erickson v. State

599 N.W.2d 589 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Sep 21, 1999

The plain meaning of the statute is that immunity is established for losses “arising out of a person’s use of a logging road * * Minn.Stat. § 3.736, subd. 3(p). … Respondent has shown no clearly expressed legislative goal that would be violated by giving the logging road exception its plain meaning.

Georgia Department of Community Health v. Data Inquiry, LLC

313 Ga. App. 683 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Jan 25, 2012

The court’s reliance on Azarat constitutes error, however, because Azarat is clearly distinguishable on the facts from the instant case. … Thus, the ruling of Ararat is inapplicable here and does not relieve Data Inquiry of its burden of producing affirmative evidence to demonstrate that a valid written contract exists in order to establish a waiver of the Department

Bell v. New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission

121 N.M. 328 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Oct 20, 1995

The second sentence qualifies the first and preserves immunity if Defendants show that Ute Lake presently operates for diversion or storage of water in addition to its function as a public park. … The new evidence establishes that the case at bar is very similar to Allocca and is subject to the same analysis. 10.

Leo MacHine & Tool, Inc. v. Poe Volunteer Fire Department, Inc.

936 N.E.2d 855 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 12, 2010

The governmental entity seeking to establish immunity bears the burden of proving that the challenged act or omission was a policy decision made by the conscious balancing of risk and benefits. Id. … However, based on the established case law, it is clear that the timing of the decision to use Anderson's excavator does not solely determine its immunity status; rather, the nature of the specific decision is equally important

Seikel v. City of Akron

191 Ohio App. 3d 362 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 8, 2010

Thus, the Laurie court concluded that the plaintiff could not establish an exception to immunity and the city of Cleveland was entitled to immunity as a matter of law. {¶ 14} In response to Akron’s assertion that maintaining … The Seikels, however, have failed to sustain their reciprocal burden of establishing that an exception to immunity under R.C. 2744.02 applies.