Case law

Bellnoa v. City of Austin

894 S.W.2d 821 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Mar 15, 1995

Although the words “under this chapter” do not unequivocally provide that section 101.0215 is subject to section 101.021, neither do the words of section 101.0215 clearly and unambiguously waive sovereign immunity. … Because the statutory language does not clearly and unambiguously waive sovereign immunity, and in view of the stated legislative intent, we hold that section 101.0215 is not an independent waiver of immunity.

Canon v. Bernstein

144 Mich. App. 604 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 5, 1985

Accepting as true a plaintiffs allegations, and any conclusions that may reasonably be drawn therefrom, the motion must be denied unless the claim is so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development … If a plaintiff successfully pleads and establishes a non-tort cause of action, § 7 will not bar recovery simply because the underlying facts could have also established a tort cause of action.” 420 Mich 647 -648.

Hultman v. Blumenthal

67 Conn. App. 613 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Jan 15, 2002

The press release issued by the defendant clearly states that the charges are “alleged.” … The standard set forth in § 4-165 does not apply to the current situation because liability under the statute only applies when the defendant has not established a defense of sovereign immunity. Id., 162-64.

Ortega v. Martin

293 Or. App. 180 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 1, 2018

2007). 3 The state's theory, generally stated, was that plaintiff's injuries arose out of his recreational use, allowed by the state, of either the ocean or the "ocean shore," as defined in ORS 390.605(2), both of which qualified … Thus, under Landis , the state still would not have established its entitlement to recreational immunity.

Pitts v. WINKLER COUNTY

351 S.W.3d 564 · Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso) · Sep 21, 2011

His parents sued the city, claiming that the crosswalk was not clearly marked. Id. at 5-6 . … In its brief, the County states, “It is clearly established law, and the County does not dispute, that governmental units at all levels are required to maintain their streets, roads and highways in accordance with how they

Phillips v. Chang

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 28, 2023

Dismissal on this ground is proper when “the facts and allegations [in the complaint] establish a lack of subject[-]matter jurisdiction.” Id. … The Supreme Court stated clearly that it has “no intention of relinquishing [its jurisdiction] to any degree or extent.” Id.

Wechsler v. Wayne County Road Commission

215 Mich. App. 579 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 26, 1996

immunity below. … The defendant clearly could have done much more to focus attention on the issue of threshold liability.

Dunlap v. W.L. Logan Trucking Co.

161 Ohio App. 3d 51 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 17, 2005

Thus, while the word “shall” establishes a mandatory duty, the word “should” requires ODOT to use its discretion and engineering judgment. See Jeska v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. (Sept. 16, 1999), Franklin App. … To qualify for the defense, the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he had no reason to anticipate or foresee the sudden loss of consciousness.

HART Et Al. v. SIRMANS

336 Ga. App. 212 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Mar 22, 2016

Official or ‘qualified’ immunity protects individual public agents from personal liability for discretionary actions taken within the scope of their official authority, and done without wilfulness, malice, or … Equating actual malice with ill will would lead to this absurd result, contrary to well-established rules of constitutional construction. (Citations omitted.) Adams 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

Peprah v. American Suzuki Motor Corp.

257 N.J. Super. 132 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 10, 1992

N.J.S.A. 17:30E-7, in relevant part, provides: Pursuant to the plan of operation, the association shall have the power and duty to: * * * * * * * * (e) Arrange for the issuance of automobile insurance to any qualified applicant … Torts *138 such as conversion, spoilation of evidence, assault, battery and the like are clearly outside the intended scope of duties of a servicing carrier for the Association.

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.

Chorak v. Naughton

409 So. 2d 35 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 5, 1982

To establish a battery, a plaintiff must suffer a harmful or offensive contact, and the tortfeasor must have intended to cause such contact. … Thus, the exclusivity provision of the Act clearly precludes an employee who acts with willful and wanton disregard, or with gross negligence and whose actions cause injury to a fellow employee from claiming immunity for

Woodard v. North Carolina Local Governmental Employees' Retirement System

110 N.C. App. 83 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 4, 1993

immunity; (4) defendants were protected from suit for any state claims by reason of the doctrine of official immunity; (5) plaintiff had not stated a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against certain defendants; and (6) … plaintiffs suit was barred pursuant to the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

Larabee v. Governor of the State

65 A.D.3d 74 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 2, 2009

Even if legislative statements resulting in a decision or action are immune, the unlawful discharge of an immunized decision might not itself be within the circle of immunity, if it is not essential to legislative independence … We are also mindful of the many concerns set forth in the record about the future retention of qualified jurists and the attraction of highly qualified attorneys to the bench as judges retire or otherwise leave.

Bunch v. Britton

802 S.E.2d 462 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 6, 2017

To establish a waiver of sovereign immunity a plaintiff must specifically allege a waiver in his complaint. … Our Supreme Court emphasized that Corum clearly established the principle that sovereign immunity could not operate to bar direct constitutional claims.

Hughes v. County of Burlington

99 N.J. Super. 405 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 26, 1968

It was also established that engineering officials of the county and state highway departments had endorsed their *411 approval of the plans for the reconstruction of the road pursuant to federal aid requirements. … Plaintiff adduced the testimony of two engineering experts qualified as to knowledge of highway construction standards.

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

LATOYA BRAY v. STORMIE CROCKFORD WATKINS

Court of Appeals of Georgia · Sep 4, 2025

Dollar, 287 Ga. 618, 619 (697 SE2d 775) (2010) (“The doctrine of official immunity, also known as qualified immunity, offers public officers and employees limited protection from suit in their personal [or individual] … The party seeking to benefit from a waiver of sovereign immunity bears the burden of establishing such a waiver. Id.

In Re Pettigrew

115 N.J. Eq. 401 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 26, 1934

The executors, after qualifying, merely continued his said employment on the same terms as were in effect at the time of the testator's death. … The unquestioned evidence clearly establishes that the executors, through Mr.