Case law

Texas Office of the Comptroller of Public Accounts v. Saito

372 S.W.3d 311 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jul 5, 2012

In a single issue, the Comptroller asserts that sovereign immunity has not been clearly and unambiguously waived as required by government code section 311.034. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 311.034 (West Supp.2011). … Therefore, we follow Fernandez and conclude' the legislature has clearly and unambiguously waived the sovereign immunity of state agencies for anti-retaliation claims. See Fernandez, 28 S.W.3d at 8-9 .

Rosen v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development

2001 La.App. 4 Cir. 0499 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jan 30, 2002

If the employee had no discretion or choice as to appropriate conduct, there is no immunity. … This conclusion is not manifestly erroneous, clearly wrong, or wrong as a matter of law.

Petula v. Mellody

158 Pa. Commw. 212 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 30, 1993

Summary judgment is only appropriate when, after examining the record in favor of the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant clearly establishes entitlement to judgment as a matter of … Malia and Goralski clearly do not stand for the broad proposition that school superintendents are immune from suit in a defamation action.

Bezzini v. Department of Social Services

49 Conn. App. 432 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Jul 21, 1998

This result clearly would be contrary to the legislative purpose underlying the medicaid program. 2 Our Supreme Court’s decision in Forsyth v. Rowe, supra, 226 Conn. 818 , is instructive. … In Forsyth , the court concluded that a trust that was established for the purpose of assisting an incompetent beneficiary with the proceeds from a tort recovery constituted a medicaid qualifying trust that served to disqualify

Appelbaum v. County of Sullivan

222 A.D.2d 987 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 28, 1995

Alternatively, defendant suggests that plaintiff has failed to show that the asserted deficiencies were violative of any established standard, or that they were a proximate cause of the accident. … The first of these arguments must be rejected, for it is defendant who has the burden initially of demonstrating, prima facie, its right to judgment on the basis of qualified immunity; it must show that the decision to refrain

BROADBENT BY BROADBENT v. Broadbent

178 Ariz. 53 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Apr 5, 1994

In addition, the mother had previously removed her contact lenses and could not see the outside area clearly. … In the event that there is to be a departure or modification of the established case law, it is for the supreme court to determine and not this Court. GARBARINO, J., concurs. . In Rourk v.

Ruda v. State

279 A.D.2d 463 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 8, 2001

The defendant established its entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law on the ground that the statements were absolutely privileged (see, Park Knoll Assocs. v Schmidt, 59 NY2d 205, 208 ; Clark v McGee, 49 NY2d 613 … Furthermore, the defendant established that it was entitled to summary judgment on the defense of qualified immunity because Shepherd’s statements were communicated only to persons with a common interest in the subject matter

P.L.S. ex rel. Shelton v. Koster

360 S.W.3d 805 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Dec 13, 2011

Section 537.600 re-established the sovereign immunity that existed in the state prior to September 12, 1977, but provided for two specific kinds of claims as to which sovereign immunity was expressly waived: (1) Injuries … The court suggested, though, that the Attorney General's duties and abilities were not "clearly defined.” Id.

Tom Brown v. E. Howard Carson, Jr.

348 Ga. App. 689 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Feb 20, 2019

(b) Constitutional Challenge Barred by Sovereign Immunity. Carson next argues that the trial court erred by ruling that the challenge to the moratorium was barred by sovereign immunity. … In some cases, qualified official immunity may limit the availability of such relief, but sovereign immunity generally will pose no bar.”).

kontos v. state

Vermont Superior Court · Feb 29, 2024

It is the Plaintiffs who must show that their claims qualify under the Tort Claims Act for the waiver of immunity. Denis Bail Bonds. Inc. v. State, 159 Vt. 481 (1993). … Since Plaintiffs have not Page 3 of 5 shown that their case qualifies for an exception to sovereign immunity, summary judgment is granted to all State Defendants on this ground.

Dupre & Son Floor Covering, Inc. v. City of Iota

9 La.App. 3 Cir. 1183 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · May 5, 2010

Therefore, Iota contended, the officers and town were immune pursuant to La. … We need not determine that Iota is immune and that Iota negated one or more of the essential elements of tort; for Iota to prevail, we need only find that it is immune or that the essential elements of tort have been negated

City of Georgetown, Texas v. Lower Colorado River Authority

413 S.W.3d 803 · Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Aug 23, 2013

City of Mexia, 197 S.W.3d 325, 332 (Tex.2006) (noting that legislature must clearly and unambiguously waive sovereign immunity). *808 . … The legislature’s waiver of immunity from suit must be clear and unambiguous. Tooke, 197 S.W.3d at 332-33 . These principles of immunity from suit and waiver of immunity are well established.

Evans v. Page

341 Ill. App. 3d 486 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 18, 2003

Section 202 of the ADA provides as follows: “Subject to the provisions of this subchapter, no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the … Although Congress properly and clearly expressed its intent to do so, it acted on the basis of an inadequate record and imposed a remedy that is neither congruent nor proportional to the problem it identified.”

DAKOTA J. LACKEY v. IBERIA R-V SCHOOL DISTRICT, and JASON MORRIS

Missouri Court of Appeals · Feb 16, 2016

We reverse as to Morris because the summary judgment record fails to establish his Coverdell immunity. … if the summary judgment record – those “separately numbered paragraphs” and responses per Rule 74.04(c) – establishes every element of Coverdell immunity.

Jamie Yount v. Ronald Canada

Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Dec 6, 2024

Next, Yount argues that the Whitley County defendants are not entitled to qualified official immunity. … Consequently, he is not afforded qualified official immunity. But there is no evidence that he performed his ministerial duty in a negligent manner.

Melbourne Corp. v. City of Chicago

76 Ill. App. 3d 595 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 4, 1979

Accordingly, to constitute a so-called “constitutional tort,” defendant’s actions must constitute a knowing or malicious violation of Melbourne’s clearly established constitutional rights. … That Melbourne’s constitutional rights were being violated was not “clearly” established until the decision of our supreme court and then only by a four-to-three margin.

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.

Kik v. Sbraccia

268 Mich. App. 690 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 23, 2006

wrongful death act cannot modify the immunity established under the GTLA. … The statute does not limit or otherwise establish the types of damages that are recoverable from the government when liability is established.

TRIANON PARK CONDOMINIUM ASSOC., INC. v. City of Hialeah

423 So. 2d 911 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jan 11, 1983

The City's appeal addresses the issue of the scope of sovereign immunity of a municipality. … Similarly, we find that the City's enforcement of the established Code standards is a purely ministerial action which does not rise to the status of basic policy evaluation since the majority of the inspectors' acts involve

Trey McKnight v. Adelaida Olvera, Mother and Next Friend of H.A., a Minor Child

Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Jul 18, 2025

He also argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law, because 1) there can be no genuine issue of material fact because there is video evidence clearly showing a combative, assaultive, and abusive … “[B]ad faith” can be predicated on a violation of a constitutional, statutory, or other clearly established right which a person in the public employee’s position presumptively