Case law

Moore v. City of Torrance

101 Cal. App. 3d 66 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 24, 1979

Plaintiff argues that section 846 in granting immunity is a general statute, whereas section 835 is a specific statute because it creates liability only after plaintiff has established by a preponderance of the evidence that … Water Dist., supra, 66 Cal.App.3d 725 , however, clearly refutes this argument.

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.

Horton v. Unigard Ins. Co.

355 So. 2d 154 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 14, 1978

Having established that the doctrine is still viable we must decide whether there is something unique about a wrongful death action which would exempt such an action from the application of the doctrine. … Clearly Clementine could not maintain an action and recover damages against her husband Raymond had she survived her injuries.

People v. Sims

2025 IL App (4th) 250148 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 17, 2025

The court found the “legislative intent of [section 5 of the Act] is clearly safety and not prosecution.” … ¶ 25 In this case, the elements to establish immunity under section 5(c)(2) are undisputed.

Clear Lake City Water Auth. v. FRIENDSWOOD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LTD.

256 S.W.3d 735 · Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · May 22, 2008

The Legislature does not state when the Authority’s agents may be served with any process, notice, or demand, and it does not clearly and unambiguously waive immunity from suit. … In section *745 49.066(f), the Legislature does not state when the Authority may properly be made a party to a suit, and it does not clearly and unambiguously waive immunity from suit.

In Interest of B-----M-----N

570 S.W.2d 493 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Aug 22, 1978

Section 13.03 provides that the court may appoint two or more experts qualified as examiners of blood types to make the blood tests and any party may employ other qualified examiners of blood tests if they so desire. … Conversely, such legislation has created an avenue for the establishment of paternity which was not clearly established in the past. The equal protection clause of the U.S.

Longbottom v. State Board of Community Colleges & Occupational Education

17 Brief Times Rptr. 821 · Colorado Court of Appeals · May 20, 1993

(excellent facilities for graduate study): something (as a hospital, machinery, plumbing) that is built, constructed, installed, or established to perform some particular function or to serve or facilitate some particular … Clearly, as pertinent here, the public school building is a facility which had in it a condition dangerous to the expected use thereof.

Steward v. Borough of Magnolia

134 N.J. Super. 312 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 28, 1975

[At 241] Thus, despite the substantial erosion of interspousal immunity, there are clearly some areas in which the doctrine is still viable. Paraphrasing what was said in Pearce v. N. J. Highway Authority, 122 N. J. … It clearly does not encompass any immunity available to the employee for a reason other than his public employment, such as an interfamilial relationship.

Serrano v. Chicago Board of Education

257 Ill. App. 3d 888 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 26, 1994

Furthermore, the plaintiff must then establish that (1) the scaffold or device was unsafe; (2) the unsafe condition caused the plaintiff’s injury; (3) the defendant was in charge of the work at the time of the injury; and … If we were to adopt such a broad reading of section 3 — 108(a), the term 'activity’ would engender activities clearly beyond what have been typically and historically regarded as governmental functions.

Weatherford v. County of Klamath

201 Or. App. 601 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 28, 2005

discretionary immunity where evidence did not establish that an earlier *608 policy judgment actually governed the acts and omissions at issue); see also Mosley v. … for discretionary immunity).

Martin v. State

208 So. 2d 630 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Mar 27, 1968

The state attorney read to him F.S. section 932.29, F.S.A.1965, the effect of which was to assure the witness immunity against prosecution on account of his testimony. … It follows that appellant’s contention that the grand jury in question was illegally impaneled has not been established.

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

Rocco v. Department of Mental Health

114 Mich. App. 792 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 6, 1982

If plaintiffs present satisfactory proofs establishing a contract and a breach of the contract, they would be entitled to recover because governmental immunity does not bar their contract action. … Under the reasoning of Howell v Outer Drive Hospital, 66 Mich App 142 ; 238 NW2d 553 (1975), Count II is redundant and does not qualify as an exception to the doctrine of governmental immunity."

Miseo v. Ross Township Police Department

147 Pa. Commw. 263 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 13, 1992

Because traffic signals are power-operated traffic-control devices, flares cannot qualify as traffic signals. … Township, liability cannot be imposed on Township under the governmental immunity exception at 42 Pa.C.S. § 8542(b)(4).

Community Newspapers, Inc. v. City of West Allis

156 Wis. 2d 350 · Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · Apr 17, 1990

We are not free to interpret the words of an unambiguous statute to achieve a result clearly not intended by the legislature. … The structure of sec. 985.03 clearly indicates that the legislature intended to distinguish between a "paid circulation" and a "circulation."

Gutbrod v. County of Hennepin

529 N.W.2d 720 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Apr 11, 1995

In a memorandum to the district court, Gutbrod claimed that “photographs of the scene clearly establish a rut * * ⅜ six inches wide and one inch deep. This rut runs approximately 25 yards long.” … Gutbrod does not question the annual repair plan or schedule adopted by the county; the decisions involved in developing that schedule were clearly policy level decisions that are entitled to immunity.

Finn v. City of Philadelphia

165 Pa. Commw. 255 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 12, 1994

Snyder clearly stated that the critical word in the real estate exception language is “of’ in the phrase “[a] dangerous condition of Commonwealth agency real estate.” … Instead, Finn’s complaint clearly establishes that the accumu *265 lation of grease on the sidewalk was deposited by cars and trucks which were previously parked there.

Heirs of Del Real v. Eason

374 S.W.3d 483 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jun 7, 2012

In their first issue, appellants contend that appel-lee did not establish his affirmative defense of qualified immunity as a matter of law. … P. 166a(c) on his qualified immunity defense. Appellants’ issues on appeal are overruled. This Court’s Ruling The trial court’s judgment is affirmed. .

Lynn v. Overlook Development

98 N.C. App. 75 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 3, 1990

These allegations are therefore sufficient to establish the City’s waiver of immunity within the limited context of Rule 12(b)(6). … . *80 However, plaintiffs’ allegations of the City’s waiver of immunity, coupled with their allegations of inspector Smith’s willful and wanton conduct in the surviving claims against him, clearly state a cognizable claim

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.