Case law

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

Malone v. City of Seattle

24 Wash. App. 217 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 17, 1979

The Paramedic Civil Immunity Act clearly and unambiguously states that no liability shall be occasioned by the good faith rendition of "emergency lifesaving service" by a paramedic. … The plaintiff argues that the act's definition of a "physician's trained mobile intensive care paramedic" 3 qualifies, and thereby circumscribes, the situational meaning of *223 "emergency lifesaving service."

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.

Pearce v. US Fidelity and Guar. Co.

10 Fla. L. Weekly 2326 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Oct 9, 1985

The appellees say the legislative intent clearly is to facilitate Division *752 investigation of possibly fraudulent insurance claims, and that, to assist in this objective, immunity is granted for reporting suspicions of … Failure to establish any one element will destroy the cause of action. Weissman v. K-Mart Corporation, 396 So.2d 1164 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).

Kenney v. Jeanes Hospital

2001 Pa. Super. 48 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 21, 2001

and, thus, qualifies as a statutory employer. … Moreover, our review of the issue clearly indicates that it is completely without merit. ¶ 12 Appellants’ remaining issues are challenges to the constitutionality of the statutory employer defense.

Marie v. Police Jury of Parish of Terrebonne

161 So. 2d 407 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Mar 2, 1964

"The jurisprudence of this State is well established that a police jury, as a political subdivision of the State, falls within the scope of the doctrine of sovereign immunity. … clearly alleged acts that constitute a taking of property, viz: "`2.

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.

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.

Scholz v. Epstein

198 Conn. App. 197 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Jun 16, 2020

delayed the recording of the certificate of foreclosure, in light of the fact that the litigation privilege applies to documents prepared in connection with a judicial proceeding, the defendant’s action was clearly … proceeding], the court must decide as a matter of law whether the . . . statements [at issue] are sufficiently relevant to the issues involved in a pro- posed or ongoing judicial [or quasi-judicial] processing, so as to qualify

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.

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.

Everett v. Parma Hts.

2013 Ohio 5314 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 5, 2013

. {¶13} Under the second tier of the statutory analysis, once immunity 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. … However, before R.C. 2744.02(B)(2) will remove the City or the County’s immunity, the Everetts must first establish the elements required to sustain a negligence action and second, that the negligence arose out of “a proprietary

MAIN STREET AT WOOLWICH, LLC VS. AMMONS SUPERMARKET, INC.(L-1477-14, GLOUCESTER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

451 N.J. Super. 135 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 25, 2017

The lawsuit, the Court finds, to qualify as a sham must be objectively baseless. The Court is not to consider the underlying motivation. … Plaintiffs argue the motion judge's dismissal of their tortious interference claim is clearly erroneous.

The State of Texas v. Nonparty Patient No. 1, Nonparty Patient No. 2, Nonparty Patient No. 3, Nonparty Patient No. 4, Nonparty Patient No. 5, Nonparty Patient No. 6, Nonparty Patient No. 7, and Nonparty Patient No. 8, Nonparty Patient No. 9, Nonparty Patient No. 10, and Nonparty Patient No. 11

Texas Court of Appeals, 15th District · Apr 14, 2025

unless it has The court of appeals concluded that the rule announced in clearly and unambiguously stated otherwise. … against the [Providers] do not qualify as damages or monetary Humble Oil, 169 S.W.2d at 710.

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.

City of New Haven v. Reichhart

729 N.E.2d 600 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 8, 2000

Attackable “wastage” in the sense hereinabove used would also occur where the annexation was clearly or patently illegal. … There, the Court ruled that petitioners enjoy only a qualified immunity under the right of petition where they express "libelous and damaging falsehoods in petitions to Government officials.”

Black v. Labor Ready, Inc.

2010 Pa. Super. 72 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 26, 2010

The court further determined that the evidence clearly shows that Appellee was Appellant’s employer and that Appellee, therefore, is immune from suit. … Our Supreme Court has not definitively established whether the second element (successful maintenance) is strictly necessary to implicate judicial estoppel or is merely a factor favoring the application.