Case law

Helena Dettmer and Terry Stone v. City of Coralville, Iowa

Court of Appeals of Iowa · Mar 5, 2025

The area marked in the photo is clearly not on the sidewalk. It is in the street. This conclusion is supported by case law interpreting section 668.10(1)(b). … Conclusion The record establishes that Dettmer tripped in the street and the city complied with its snow-removal policy. As such, the city is entitled to immunity under section 668.10(1)(b).

CITY OF DELRAY BEACH v. SHERMAN WILLIAMS AMERICAN LEGION, POST 188

District Court of Appeal of Florida · Mar 22, 2023

We agree with the City that the complaint fails to sufficiently allege the existence of a written contract to establish a waiver of sovereign immunity as to a breach of contract claim. … The Post also correctly notes that sovereign immunity is generally an affirmative defense, and a motion to dismiss should be granted only when the complaint conclusively establishes its applicability. See Peak v.

Hephzibah v. City of New York

124 A.D.3d 442 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 13, 2015

Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, finding that plaintiff failed to establish that she was owed a special duty. … We note that the police conduct at issue clearly involved the exercise of discretion in making an arrest (see Johnson v City of New York, 15 NY3d 676, 681 [2010]; see also McLean v City of New York, *443 12 NY3d 194, 202

Whitcomb v. City and County of Denver

731 P.2d 749 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Aug 21, 1986

We further hold that the officers had qualified immunity. … A public official performing discretionary acts within the scope of his office enjoys qualified immunity and is protected against civil liability if his conduct is not willful, malicious, or intended to cause harm.

Vause v. Bay Medical Center

687 So. 2d 258 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 30, 1996

The plaintiff's complaint does not clearly show the applicability of the defense. … The facts alleged in the complaint establish this relationship.

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.

Drewes v. Grand Valley State Colleges

106 Mich. App. 776 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 3, 1981

667 ; 232 NW2d 636 (1975). 9 In the instant case plaintiff asserts that the act unreasonably discriminates between employees of insured contractors, who may still maintain a cause of action against a third party who would qualify … This is clearly a legitimate state interest, and it is well served by holding the principal liable for workers’ compensation payments where the contractor is uninsured.

Horn v. Village Supermarkets, Inc.

260 N.J. Super. 165 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 10, 1992

The court in Carollo "conclude[d] therefore that the [arrest authorization of the] statute does not afford qualified immunity from a malicious prosecution action instituted by the merchant." 251 N.J. … Any person purposely concealing unpurchased merchandise of any store or other retail mercantile establishment, either on the premises or outside the premises of such store or other retail mercantile establishment, shall be

Rankin v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority

146 Pa. Commw. 429 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 18, 1992

Summary judgment is only appropriate when, after examining the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue of material fact, and the movant clearly establishes entitlement to judgment … The City concedes that section 21-701 operates as a waiver of immunity, but argues that despite the waiver of immunity, it is entitled to summary judgment because Rankin has failed to establish that Diamond acted negligently

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.

Lewis v. Ayersville Local School Dist.

226 N.E.3d 438 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 10, 2023

-7- Case No. 4-23-03 {¶17} As an initial matter, it is important to note that once a political subdivision establishes general immunity, the burden shifts to the plaintiff … Id., ¶ 27-28. {¶23} In the case sub judice, the Lewises urge that their complaint set forth sufficient facts that, if proven, establish the school district is not entitled to immunity due to a physical defect

State v. Graves

58 Or. App. 286 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 21, 1982

A hearing was held on the motion, at which time the district attorney informed the court that defendant did not qualify for diversion. The court denied the motion. … That evidence clearly provided a reason to suspect that he was drug-dependent. Defendant was entitled to evaluation.

Wesley v. State

117 Ariz. 261 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Oct 4, 1977

In the suit against the Parole Board, the Arizona Supreme Court removed the absolute immunity to suit surrounding public officials in their discretionary functions and replaced it with a qualified immunity, thus opening the … The present factual situation is clearly outside the Grimm holding as to narrowed duty because the Liquor Board took no action and assumed no responsibility.

Ruiz v. State

154 Wash. App. 454 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 8, 2010

The tree that caused the injury was clearly located within a designated riparian zone. … The application process here clearly established a zone within which Hancock was prevented from harvesting timber. That zone is not disputed by the parties.

In re A.P.

165 N.C. App. 841 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 17, 2004

Accordingly, respondent asserts that “he clearly has a right to pursue the present appeal.” However, DSS disputes respondent’s assertion. N.C. Gen. … The concept of in loco parentis has been addressed in the context of whether parental immunity exists in tort actions. For example, Liner v. Brown, 117 N.C.

Texas Department of State Health Services v. Amy W. Rockwood

468 S.W.3d 147 · Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · May 27, 2015

DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION To establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination, the plaintiff must show: (1) she has a disability; (2) she is qualified for the job; and (3) she suffered an adverse employment … Accordingly, to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination, Rockwood was required to show that she was qualified for her job when she was terminated.

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.

Huffman v. Indiana Department of Environmental Management

788 N.E.2d 505 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 19, 2003

clearly suggested that intent. *509 3 Because the legislature already has defined who qualifies for administrative review, it was error for the OEA to read into the phrase "aggrieved or adversely affected" a common law standing … or adversely affected" person merely by establishing that she is a citizen of the State of Indiana.

PRAIRIE VIEW a & M UNIVERSITY v. Brooks

180 S.W.3d 694 · Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · Oct 20, 2005

At the close of the evidence, the University again urged the issue of sovereign immunity, arguing in a motion for a directed verdict that the evidence failed to establish a waiver of immunity under a premises theory. … The TTCA “does not waive sovereign immunity for all negligence claims against governmental units.” Id. There will accordingly be cases in which a state entity was clearly negligent but will not be held liable.

Daniel L. Taylor v. The Curators of the University of Missouri

Missouri Court of Appeals · Jun 2, 2020

Because the trial court’s ruling does not qualify as a “final judgment” pursuant to section 512.020(5),1 Wilson v. City of St. Louis, No. … Curators argued that Count II should be dismissed because Taylor failed to plead facts establishing that an exception to sovereign immunity applied that would subject Curators to liability under the MMPA.