Case law

Tyrrell v. Mays by and Through Mays

885 S.W.2d 495 · Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso) · Aug 10, 1994

The question on appeal is, then, did Appellants establish as a matter of law their non-liability for the alleged negligence by reason of some form of immunity. … This concept was clearly set forth in Baker v. Story: Historically, this doctrine [sovereign immunity], as its name implies, shields the sovereign from liability.

Hoskins v. Metzger

102 So. 3d 752 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 19, 2012

The motion argues that there is no cause of action due to this immunity, but it appears to us that immunity is actually an affirmative defense. See Fariello v. … Metzger may qualify to testify as an expert at trial, but we are not entirely convinced that he qualifies as a professional for tort liability.

Doe v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education

222 N.C. App. 359 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 21, 2012

According to well-established North Carolina law, governmental immunity is an “ ‘immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability!.]’ ” Craig, 363 N.C. at 338 , 678 S.E.2d at 354 (quoting Mitchell v. … The record before us in this case clearly reflects that the Board asserted governmental immunity in its responsive pleading and argued that Plaintiff was not entitled to overcome a governmental immunity bar by asserting constitutional

Amaral v. Seekonk Grand Prix Corp.

89 Mass. App. Ct. 1 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jan 14, 2016

"The standard of review of a grant of summary judgment is whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, all material facts have been established and the moving party is entitled to … Grand Prix could fully anticipate that a parent accompanying minor children and paying a fee on their behalf would qualify as a paying customer under the statute.

Stack v. State

148 A.D.2d 991 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 10, 1989

It is well established that "when a municipality studies a dangerous condition and determines as part of a reasonable plan of governmental services that certain steps need not be taken, that decision may not form the basis … Thus, in the circumstances of this case, the State has qualified immunity from liability arising out of a reasoned highway planning decision (see, Friedman v State of New York, supra, at 283; see, Weiss v Fote, supra, at

Layfer v. Tucker

71 Ill. App. 3d 333 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 3, 1979

At the time of the filing of the instant lawsuit the treasurer of Lake County had accumulated *792,653.75, deposited in qualified banking depositories. … Thus, this fund was not established in the original instance as a fund for the class represented by counsel for the plaintiffs.

Banks v. Parish of Jefferson

990 So. 2d 26 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jun 19, 2008

The act establishes local and regional offices of emergency preparedness. La.R.S. 29:729. … "Clearly, [the parish] was provided with immunity from negligence in its efforts to remedy the effects of Hurricane Lili during the state of emergency absent a showing of willful misconduct. (citing Castille v.

Julie Crouch v. Andrea Trinque and Koy Floyd

262 S.W.3d 416 · Texas Court of Appeals, 11th District (Eastland) · Jul 17, 2008

Thus, Floyd established the affirmative defense of official immunity as a matter of law, and summary judgment in Floyd’s favor was proper. … Because Trinque did not as a matter of law establish a qualified privilege or defense or disprove an element of defamation, she was not entitled to summary judgment on the cause of action for defamation.

Hudson v. City of Chicago

378 Ill. App. 3d 373 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 14, 2007

He clearly was being called upon to execute or enforce a law. … On the other hand, there is an extensive line of cases that has held that ordinary police activities do not qualify as enforcement or execution of the law so as to be protected by section 2 — 202 immunity.

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

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.”).

Pollock v. Panjabi

47 Conn. Super. Ct. 179 · Connecticut Superior Court · May 17, 2000

"While the rationale for witness immunity clearly supports application of the immunity to witnesses of unique fact or opinion who are otherwise unrelated to the litigation, it does not necessarily contemplate the situation … The plaintiffs contend that the alleged acts qualify as unfair and deceptive acts that are unethical, oppressive and unscrupulous.

McNesby v. State

231 N.J. Super. 568 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 30, 1989

Any liability established by the act is subject to immunity created by the law. N.J.S.A. 59:2-1(b). … While desiring a dual goal: that a mental hospital provide a safe environment where patients may exercise as much freedom as possible, we conclude that the Legislature clearly intended to immunize such decisions on terms

School District No. 58 v. Chappel

155 Mo. App. 498 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Feb 21, 1911

turmoil and discord entailed would be without end and the peace and repose of society would suffer for the fault of the law in omitting to render secure the rights once fully ascertained and determined by a competent tribunal established … signifies the desire of ten qualified voters of one of the districts affected to have a proposition submitted to the annual meetings looking to the change of boundary line, and clearly and distinctly sets forth the proposition

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.”

State v. the City of Galveston

Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Sep 10, 2004

A long line of well-established authority supports this interpretation of Posnainsky by holding that any governmental entity, including a municipality, enjoys immunity to suit for its governmental actions unless that immunity … And, the Legislature knows how to clearly and unambiguously waive sovereign immunity from suit.

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.

Wilson v. Marino

164 Ohio App. 3d 662 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 9, 2005

that Plaintiff-Appellant’s expert witness was qualified to testify as to the standard of care? … On redirect, Diment testified, “[T]here is a direct relationship between [appellant’s] work related injury, her subsequent chiropractic treatment, and her subsequent surgical treatment.” {¶ 57} The record clearly shows that