Case law

Schmit v. Tjitandi

2016 La.App. 1 Cir. 1431 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jun 2, 2017

Schmit entitled to tort immunity under the LWCA. … In the case at bar, the uncontested evidence admitted for purposes of the motions for summary judgment establishes that Mr. Tjitandi was first hired by Qualified in April or May of 2013.

Dept. of Human Services v. F. T. R.

306 Or. App. 697 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 30, 2020

of use immunity. … On this record, mother has not established that the ordered psychological evaluation was so clearly incriminating in violation of her Fifth Amendment rights that it was impermissible in the absence of a blanket grant of use

People v. Brunner

32 Cal. App. 3d 908 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 12, 1973

The order signed by the cqurt and filed in the record *912 clearly states it was based on Brunner’s motion for immunity from prosecution. … On court approval of the agreement immunity will be granted the witness after he has complied with the representations of the agreement. 3 As with plea bargains, terms of a promise of immunity should appear clearly on the

Energy Pol'y Advoc. v. Balderas

560 P.3d 37 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Oct 15, 2024

The motion did not describe the content of documents withheld or the content of the lengthy redactions in the documents produced that allegedly qualified this information as privileged. … ” {21} We conclude that a generalized assertion of privilege or immunity, even if the public agency asserts the privilege or immunity in good faith, is not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of compliance with IPRA

Joseph Construction Co. v. Board of Trustees of Governors State University

362 Ill. Dec. 386 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 20, 2012

Ellis, 102 Ill. 2d at 394-95. ¶ 41 Ellis, Raymond and their progeny clearly hold that our state colleges and universities are “the State” for purposes of sovereign immunity and must be sued in the Court of Claims … While the plaintiff qualifies that statement with the suffix “after the enactment of P.A. 89-4,” as noted above, we find nothing in Public Act 89-4 that changes the applicability of principles of sovereign immunity

Biloon's Electrical Service, Inc. v. City of Wilmington

401 A.2d 636 · Superior Court of Delaware · Mar 28, 1979

Additionally, “Moreover, establishment of a general method of handling snowstorms is a matter of planning. … Firefighting is clearly an important municipal function which would be unduly inhibited by excessive intervention by the courts at the tactical level.

Saldivar v. Momah

145 Wash. App. 365 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 24, 2008

Klingbeil is not qualified to opine on psychiatric conditions.” … Nor does the defense counsel’s use of the word “jury” establish “actual notice” of a jury demand.

Ohio Bell Tel. Co. v. Cleveland

2024 Ohio 1475 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 18, 2024

Photographs of Ohio Bell’s cable clearly show that it was cut by something, most likely a jackhammer. At the very least, Ohio Bell has established a genuine issue of material as to the cause of its injury. … Defense to Liability Inapplicable The city argues that even if Ohio Bell establishes that it (the city) was negligent, the city has a defense that reinstates immunity pursuant to R.C. 2744.03(A)(5).

Yeung v. MARIC

224 Ariz. 499 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Jun 8, 2010

The court stated that arbitrators are therefore protected by an absolute immunity: “The immunity in question here is one bestowed by public policy on those people who, by office or by contract, are called upon to act as judges … It is in every real sense a judicial immunity. It attaches to every act done in the judicial capacity.... In the role of arbitrator ... goes the cloak of immunity.”

Kane v. League of Oregon Cities

66 Or. App. 836 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 8, 1984

Plaintiff contends that the announcement was an offer which he accepted by being the best qualified candidate to apply for the award. … Acceptance of the application and fee constituted acceptance of an offer to apply under the criteria defendant had established.” 69 Ill 2d at 330.

Lee v. State

318 So. 2d 431 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 31, 1975

Before trial the State filed a written motion to limit the cross-examination of the informant to preclude the defense from establishing that the informant was presently charged with the crime of robbery. … The answer is clearly yes and the reasons are aptly set out in dicta in the Morrell case, supra.

Twenty-Nine Palms Enterprises Corp. v. Bardos

210 Cal. App. 4th 1435 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 11, 2012

[f] (3) If a corporation, or any other combination or organization, it shall qualify by the appearance of a responsible managing officer or responsible managing employee who is qualified for the same license classification … ’s license while acting in the capacity of a qualifying individual pursuant to this section.”

Trice v. Wilson

113 Ga. App. 715 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · May 6, 1966

Thus, while the State of Tennessee, like Georgia, has not renounced its sovereign immunity from suit, Tennessee, unlike Georgia, has established by statutory enactment a quasi-judicial body to determine and award fair and … Clearly, such award was intended as payment in part to the plaintiff for damages actually sustained by her as the proximate result of the tortious misconduct of a State employee committed in the course of his employment and

University of Texas at El Paso v. Gabriel Soriano

Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso) · Jan 29, 2025

UTEP filed a plea to the jurisdiction asserting it was entitled to sovereign immunity because Soriano failed to establish a prima facie case as to each of his claims. Soriano responded, attaching his own affidavit. … Because our ultimate focus remains on whether Soriano can show that he would not have been terminated but for his reports to human resources and to Olmedo, we conclude Soriano has failed to establish a waiver of immunity

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

Aucoin v. Rochel

2008 La.App. 1 Cir. 1180 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Dec 23, 2008

Aucoin relies on dicta by the Louisiana Supreme Court in a footnote in a case that involved an intoxicated minor clearly outside the scope of immunity provided by the statute. In Berg v. … In this case, the facts are even stronger in establishing that Ms.

Marc Williams, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Department of Transportation; And Kyle Madsen, in His Official Capacity as the Director of the Right of Way Division of the Texas Department of Transportation v. MMP Properties LLC

Texas Court of Appeals, 15th District · Jul 10, 2025

determine title to land is barred by sovereign immunity, but a suit against governmental officials is not barred if the plaintiff establishes the officials’ possession is wrongful. … The plat here does not show clearly demarcated streets and does not contain unequivocable language dedicating Lot 7 to the public.

Georgia Department of Corrections v. Couch

322 Ga. App. 234 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Jun 13, 2013

The party seeking to benefit from a waiver of sovereign immunity has the burden to establish waiver, and any suit brought to which an exception applies is subject to dismissal pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-12 (b) (1) for lack of … Regarding the waiver of sovereign immunity under OCGA § 9-11-68, the Department maintains that the Georgia Constitution clearly provides that the State has sovereign immunity, except to the extent that the General Assembly

Campo v. Sternberger

15 La.App. 5 Cir. 52 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Nov 19, 2015

Experience alone is. normally sufficient to qualify a witness as an expert. Cheairs, supra. … Anderson, testified clearly that he saw no deficiency in the plans and specifications provided by J.E. Bruce Design Consultants or Lee Engineers.

Allen v. Allen

76 N.C. App. 504 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 3, 1985

Before this statute was enacted, the established rule was that both children and their parents were immune from such suits by each other. Gillikin v. Burbage, 263 N.C. 317 , 139 S.E. 2d 753 (1965); Cox v. … G.S. 1-539.21 abolished parental immunity and opened an avenue for children to sue their parents. To hold that an established right was taken away because the statute did not open the same door for parents is incorrect.