Case law

Paul v. Wayne County Department of Public Service

271 Mich. App. 617 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 12, 2006

Clearly, the holding in Grimes , if applied to this case, requires summary disposition in favor of defendant. … The threshold question in determining the application of a new decision is whether the decision in fact clearly established a new principle of law.

King v. Allstate Insurance

135 N.M. 206 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Jan 30, 2004

Plaintiff argued that Allstate failed to establish good cause for a protective order as required by pointing to a “ ‘clearly defined and serious injury’ ” that would be suffered in the absence of the protective order. {6} … Second, in a civil rights action, a defendant’s motion for summary judgment based on the defense of qualified immunity is a collateral order and can be reviewed by writ of error.

Pritchard v. Curtis

101 A.D.3d 1502 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 27, 2012

They did not establish how this qualified as newly-discovered evidence, as they did not explain why this opinion could not have been procured in response to the motion for summary judgment a year earlier (see Maddux v Schur … That document was only used to prove an ancillary fact that was since established by other evidence.

Mora v. South Broward Hosp. Dist.

710 So. 2d 633 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Apr 1, 1998

Clearly, chapter 415, part 1, does not explicitly provide individuals with a private cause of action against those violating the reporting requirement. … We recognize that the immunity provision contained in § 415.1036 provides civil as well as criminal immunity for one making a report required by the statute.

Joshua Highlander v. Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources

Court of Appeals of Virginia · Apr 8, 2025

Cotton, 572 U.S. 650, 656 (2014)) (determining whether law was “clearly established” for § 1983 qualified immunity). … to the federal test for qualified immunity under federal law

Hunt v. City of Diboll

574 S.W.3d 406 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Nov 8, 2017

While the UDJA waives sovereign immunity for certain claims, it is not a general waiver of sovereign immunity. See id. § 37.006(b) (West 2015); City of El Paso v. … Appellants argue that they need not actually purchase or lease any goods or services to qualify as consumers.

Puddicombe v. City of Milford

Superior Court of Delaware · Aug 29, 2025

Puddicombe, Defendants argue the review process referenced in the City of Milford Code “does not provide a clearly defined process.”24 Defendants also contend Mr. … Taking those allegations as true, the Complaint establishes a conceivable path for Mr.

Mason v. Roberts

35 Ohio App. 2d 29 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 8, 1971

C. 4399.01 created an immunity from civil liability in all cases not covered therein. … any affirmative defense or immunity against liability.

Aldin Associates Ltd. Partnership v. State

209 Conn. App. 741 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Jan 11, 2022

‘‘The principle that the state cannot be sued without its consent, or sovereign immunity, is well established under our case law. . . . … It is well established ‘‘that statutes in derogation of sovereign immunity should be strictly construed. . . .

Fox v. Ogemaw County

208 Mich. App. 697 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 21, 1995

Assuming the existence of a nuisance per se exception to governmental immunity, see Li, supra, we also conclude that the trial court’s finding of a nuisance was clearly erroneous. … Because plaintiff failed to establish either a trespass-nuisance or a nuisance per se, the trial court clearly erred in finding defendants liable to her for damages; they were immune from liability under § 7(1) of the governmental

Winkler v. Spinnato

134 A.D.2d 66 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 28, 1987

Certainly, based upon dicta such as this, an argument can be made that the amendments now under review, which clearly discriminate against residents of other States, and which clearly bias employment opportunities in favor … The plaintiffs first invoked the Privileges and Immunities Clause in a *69 proposed amended complaint, dated May 7, 1987. The record on appeal does not establish whether leave to serve this complaint was ever granted.

Thomas v. Collins

960 S.W.2d 106 · Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Oct 30, 1997

Only after this second inquiry has been answered in the affirmative should the court consider whether the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. See Siegert v. … An official acts in good faith if a reasonably prudent official could have believed his conduct to be lawful in light of clearly established law and the information known at the time. Fowler v.

Hofer v. OHSU

328 Or. App. 352 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 27, 2023

But OHSU did not raise qualified privilege in its summary judgment motion, and its reference to qualified privilege in this court is factually and legally underdeveloped and does not provide a basis to affirm. … State of Oregon, 320 Or App 406, 410 n 4, 514 P3d 1131 (2022) (explaining that qualified immunity had not been raised in the state’s motion for summary judgment and that the state’s undeveloped qualified immunity argument

the City of San Antonio, Texas, Acting Through the City Public Service Board of San Antonio, Texas v. Casey Industrial, Inc.

381 S.W.3d 589 · Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · Aug 1, 2012

And, Casey does not dispute that CPS qualified “a maximum of five offerors to submit additional information.” See id. … Therefore, we conclude CPS conclusively established that CPS, Casey, and Wheelabrator executed a valid design-build contract pursuant to section 271.119.

Jefferson County, Texas v. Cherisse Jackson

557 S.W.3d 659 · Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont) · Jul 26, 2018

As a result, without the pleader establishing that a waiver of a governmental entity’s immunity exists for the claims the plaintiff seeks to advance in a lawsuit, trial courts lack jurisdiction to conduct proceedings to … Regardless of her theories, Jackson’s pleadings failed to allege or establish that the Legislature had waived a county’s immunity from suit for breach of contract claims.

Combs v. Borough of Ellsworth

151 Pa. Commw. 21 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 5, 1992

The School District filed the same preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer as formerly, alleging both immunity from liability, and the failure of appellants to set forth facts establishing any exception to immunity … Appellants argue that their complaint clearly established that the School District was under a duty to provide a safe school bus stop for minor appellant, that it was negligent in breaching said duty, and that this breach

City of Dallas v. Hillis

308 S.W.3d 526 · Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas) · Apr 29, 2010

Accordingly, the City has established that its governmental immunity was not waived as to the Hillises’ negligent-entrustment claim, and the trial court erred by failing to dismiss that claim for lack of jurisdiction. 4. … Conclusion The City established that governmental immunity defeats every claim asserted by the Hillises. Thus, the trial court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this lawsuit.

Blake Stringer, Bacc Farms, Ltd., Rockin' Lazy S, Inc. v. Red River Commodoties, Inc., and Carroll Michael Williams

Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo) · Dec 13, 2006

Here, Texas Tech's policies, procedures and rules clearly established that Phelan's nontenured appointment was an at-will employment pursuant to annual appointments that expired by their own terms. See Turner v. … of official immunity.

People v. Victor Wayman

189 Cal. App. 4th 215 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 15, 2010

By its terms, it provides immunity from criminal liability only when a qualified patient “transports . . . marijuana for his or her own personal medical use.” (§ 11362.765, subd. (b)(1), italics added.) … limitations on the amount of marijuana a qualified patient may possess.

ASHLEY WILSON v. CHRISTINE ANDERSON

Court of Appeals of Georgia · Mar 10, 2025

Wilson argues that the trial court erred in dismissing her complaint because the Administrators were not entitled to official immunity. We agree. … As this Court has held, while “the act of establishing a policy in the first place is discretionary, the act[ ] of following established polic[y] . . .