Case law

Heimann v. Kinder-Morgan CO2 Co.

140 N.M. 552 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Aug 8, 2006

in [its] Qualified Contracts ..., [its] transportation charges established as Qualified Other Transportation Charges ..., and [its] Approved Mainline Deductions.” … Shell in establishing royalty settlement values for purposes of payment to their Respective Owners and, (b) regarding Non-Qualified Other Transportation Charges ... utilized by ...

Texas Department of Transportation v. Tanya Simpson Individually, and as a Representative of the Estate of Floyd Simpson and as Next Friend of Jurnee Alexis Simpson, Amber Michele Simpson and Lauren Dior Simpson

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Feb 19, 2026

A plaintiff must allege facts that affirmatively establish the trial court’s subject- matter jurisdiction. State v. Holland, 221 S.W.3d 639, 642 (Tex. 2007). … Swift Energy Operating, LLC, 622 S.W.3d 807, 818–19 (Tex. 2021) (“[P]leadings generally do not qualify as summary-judgment ‘evidence,’ even when sworn or verified.

Richie v. Paramount Pictures Corp.

532 N.W.2d 235 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Jul 20, 1995

They also contend the district court erroneously determined respondent Tatone was protected by attorney immunity and qualified privilege. We agree that summary judgment was inappropriate and reverse. … If Tatone was not acting as Richie’s attorney, immunity would not attach.

Cypress Creek Emergency Medical Services, Inc. v. Steven Cosby and Kristen Lee Cosby, Individually and A/N/F of Brndyn Cosby and Peyton Cosby

Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont) · Mar 8, 2007

Sovereign immunity has two components: immunity from liability and immunity from suit. Wichita Falls State Hosp. v. Taylor , 106 S.W.3d 692, 696 (Tex. 2003). … HAVE THE COSBYS ESTABLISHED WAIVER OF IMMUNITY?

Doe, SORB No. 137631 v. Holmes

30 Mass. L. Rptr. 341 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Jun 4, 2012

A public official is immune from personal monetary liability for official conduct unless the particular conduct violates a right that is clearly established in federal law at the time of the conduct. Davis v. … The claim for damages against Holmes under §1983 is thus barred by qualified immunity, and must be dismissed.

Lambert v. Katz

8 A.3d 409 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 15, 2010

To defeat the defense of sovereign immunity, the plaintiff must also establish that his or her allegations fall within one of the nine enumerated exceptions to sovereign immunity set forth in Section 8522(b) of the Code. … Under this definition, the shoulder is clearly part of the highway.

Gonzales v. City of San Diego

130 Cal. App. 3d 882 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 20, 1982

Moreover, “[u]nless the Legislature has clearly provided for immunity, the important societal goal of compensating injured parties for damages caused by wilful or negligent acts must prevail.” (Ramos v. … City’s Potential Liability Can Be Predicated Upon Section 835 Section 815 3 establishes sovereign immunity in this state except as provided in the Tort Claims Act or other statute. (Williams v.

Colome v. State Athletic Commission

47 Cal. App. 4th 1444 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 29, 1996

Does the Commission have the protection of sovereign immunity? 3. Do the Commission employees enjoy immunity? 4. Does the physician employed by the Commission enjoy immunity? … Immunity applies.

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.

Brister v. Cleveland

2014 Ohio 1232 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 27, 2014

. {¶2} Brister’s complaint against the city alleges that on May 23, 2011, he qualified as an invitee of the city’s Thurgood Marshall Recreation Center, where he was exercising on a back lateral machine. … is established, a determination must be made as to whether any of the five exceptions to immunity listed under R.C. 2744.02(B) apply.

TRANSIT AUTHORITY OF RIVER CITY v. Vinson

703 S.W.2d 482 · Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Nov 15, 1985

Even if the rule survives discovery, work product immunity protects only the documents themselves and not the underlying facts. … At best, it receives a qualified protection which is overcome if the opposing party shows substantial need of the material and inability to obtain it elsewhere without undue hardship.

Bozek v. Bank of America, N.A.

455 Ill. Dec. 402 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 22, 2021

Ill. 1995). ¶ 44 And that was quite clearly the impression of Judge Blakey in summarily disposing of the removal petition. … Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553-54 (1967) (“Few doctrines were more solidly established at common law than the immunity of judges from liability for damages for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction

Gajewski v. Pavelo

36 Conn. App. 601 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Dec 22, 1994

In Connecticut, “ '[a] municipal employee . . . has a qualified immunity in the performance of a governmental duty, but he may be liable if he misperforms a ministerial act, as opposed to a discretionary act. . . . … One exception to this qualified immunity permits tort actions in circumstances where there is perceptible imminent harm to identifiable persons.

MMMG, LLC and Mobile Mike Promotions, Inc. v. Seminole Tribe of Florida, Inc., d/b/a Tribe, Inc., Tony Sanchez, Jr., etc.

196 So. 3d 438 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jun 15, 2016

Mobile Mike asserts it is well established that corporate tribal entities have no inherent immunity of their own. … The burden was on Mobile Mike to establish a waiver of STOFI’s immunity. See Seminole Tribe of Fla. v.

Chabot v. City of Sauk Rapids

412 N.W.2d 371 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Nov 24, 1987

Sauk Rapids clearly had notice that the holding pond was inadequate and potentially hazardous. … In this case a qualified contractor testified that it would cost $34,000 to restore the home to its pre-flood condition.

Duckett v. Pistoresi Ambulance Service, Inc.

19 Cal. App. 4th 1525 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 2, 1993

Section 1799.100 does not contain such limiting language which, the court held, “clearly reflects the Legislature’s intention not to limit immunity to third party actions.” (222 Cal.App.3d at p. 776.) … Thus, Pistoresi qualifies as a private organization which sponsors, supports and supervises EMT trainees.

Old Town Dev. Corp. v. Urban Renewal Agency of Monterey

249 Cal. App. 2d 313 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 9, 1967

If there is only one bidder, the land will be sold to him at the established minimum price. … Old Town seeks to recover for breach of contract, which is not covered by the immunities which have been noted. (See Gov. Code, § 814.)

Engelman Irrigation District v. Shields Brothers, Inc.

519 S.W.3d 642 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jan 19, 2015

EID asserted in defense that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because of governmental immunity, but the trial court rejected that argument. … Here, the new “rule”—that is, the Tooke holding—clearly establishes a new principle of law and overrules clear past precedent upon which the litigants relied. See id.

Snead v. Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

2007 Pa. Super. 204 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 11, 2007

Although we will repeat several times infra that under Pennsylvania law, the animals are considered property, this court clearly recognizes that dogs as pets hold a unique place in many people’s lives as friend, companion … not make SPCA a “Commonwealth agency” for immunity purposes.

Kristine Hill and Dennis Hill, Relators v. Honorable Stanley J. Wallach

Missouri Court of Appeals · Apr 19, 2022

“[The Missouri Supreme Court] has spoken clearly of the sanctity of the attorney-client privilege,” and the need to eliminate any interference with it: . . . . … However, tangible work product is a qualified immunity that, although subject to the same policy considerations, may still be discoverable in certain, limited circumstances.