Case law

Olympic Waste Services v. City of Grand Saline

204 S.W.3d 496 · Texas Court of Appeals, 12th District (Tyler) · Sep 29, 2006

themselves, waive immunity from suit. … In its brief, Olympic mentioned the existence of alleged fact questions precluding the City’s summary judgment, stating that “[tjermination of Appellant’s contract in closed Executive Session would clearly violate the Act

Welsh v. Commonwealth

14 Va. App. 300 · Court of Appeals of Virginia · Apr 7, 1992

However, the evidence established that those federal agents knew the policy that the Virginia authorities were not to be exposed to Welsh’s immunized testimony and ceased any conversations relating to Richard Welsh whenever … With regard to Hintz and Curtis, the Commonwealth established that those two witnesses had been interviewed extensively prior to Welsh’s immunized testimony.

Longo v. Santoro

195 N.J. Super. 507 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 8, 1984

This is a qualified grant of immunity dependent upon whether the employee's determination can be viewed as "palpably unreasonable." Brown v. … Applicability of subsection d, namely, the State's exercise of discretion with respect to when it would proceed, does not per se establish immunity, for immunity is not available if `a court concludes that the determination

Mitter v. St. John the Baptist Parish

920 So. 2d 263 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Dec 27, 2005

It is well established, however, that where it is attempted to establish an exception to a general rule, strict construction is required and the exception is not to be recognized unless it is clearly established. … In my opinion, the exception in question here is not clearly established and, thus, this *270 Court should not recognize that exception.

Manders v. Brown

101 Md. App. 191 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 5, 1994

The only support provided by Manders is the cryptic allegation that “the trial court’s view on [appellees’] ‘immunity’ as individuals for acts as public officials clearly suggested that it was impossible for [Manders] to … If appellees cannot establish that the actions *216 in question were taken while they were functioning as legislators, the legislative immunity defense should be rejected.

Middlebrooks v. Bibb County

261 Ga. App. 382 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · May 22, 2003

The doctrine of official immunity, also known as qualified immunity, offers public officers and employees limited protection from suit in their personal capacity. … Qualified immunity protects individual public agents from personal liability for discretionary actions taken within the scope of their official authority, and done without wilfulness, malice, or corruption.

Fleming v. Patterson

310 S.W.3d 65 · Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Mar 25, 2010

-Austin 2009, pet. filed) (holding that sovereign immunity bars a declaratory judgment claim wherein the plaintiff sought a declaration establishing title to property also claimed by the State) (citing Tex. A & M Univ. … But the cited cases clearly recognize that when officials of the state are the only *71 defendants, or the only remaining defendants, and they file a plea to the jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity, it is the duty of

Shands Jacksonville Medical Center, Inc., and University of Florida Board of Trustees

District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 11, 2024

Because the government is immune to suit, it “cannot be sued, except with its own consent. … the ALJ clearly cannot possess.

Erie County Agricultural Society v. Cluchey

49 A.D.2d 40 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 18, 1975

The property must also be used for a purpose recognized by the Legislature as qualifying for tax exemption (see Real Property Tax Law, art 4 generally). … Property used primarily to obtain revenue or profit is not held for a public use and is not ordinarily immune from taxation, but property held by a State agency primarily for a public use does not lose immunity because the

in Re Deng Minors

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 22, 2016

Because the trial court has the authority to make medical decisions for children under its jurisdiction over respondent’s objections to immunization and the court did not clearly err by determining that vaccination was appropriate … As empowered by the Legislature, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services5 (DHHS) has the authority to establish procedures for the control of diseases and infections, including the ability to establish immunization

Gonzales v. City of Atwater

6 Cal. App. 5th 929 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 15, 2016

The trial court granted the motion, as the county established all three elements of design immunity—discretionary approval was established through evidence that the engineer who approved the plans had the discretion and authority … Conclusion Since all of the elements of design immunity are established, the City is immune from liability for any dangerous condition of the intersection.18 Based on the City’s 18While evidence was produced

City of Carmel v. Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.

849 N.E.2d 1197 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 5, 2006

Economic injury would clearly accompany such a forced cessation of operations. … This would clearly be an absurd result because governance of these areas is not limited to local zoning bodies.

Brian Zezula v. Nina Brown

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 11, 2025

The established “statutory exceptions to the governmental immunity provided to the state and its agencies are the highway exception, MCL 691.1402; the motor-vehicle exception, MCL 691.1405; the public-building exception, … In other words, a governmental agency continues to enjoy immunity from tort liability unless MCL 460.732 provides otherwise or one of the established exceptions to governmental immunity applies.

Murray v. Shimalla

231 N.J. Super. 103 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 28, 1989

[Id. at 546.] *110 Even if defendant thereby qualifies for the immunity, however, he would still be liable if his conduct may fairly be characterized as bearing on his supervision of plaintiff and his conduct is found to … In view of plaintiff’s burden to establish that defendant’s conduct was willful or wanton, plaintiff should be permitted to take defendant’s deposition before trial.

Nardella v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority

34 A.3d 300 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 30, 2011

Nardella could not establish that the real estate exception to sovereign immunity, Section 8522(b)(4) of the Act commonly known as the Sovereign Immunity Act (Act), 42 Pa.C.S. § 8522(b)(4), applied in this matter. Ms. … noting that the dangerous condition must derive, originate, or have the real estate as its source in order to fall within the real estate exception, and substances such as ice, snow, or debris on the real estate do not qualify

Jones v. Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Commission

82 Md. App. 314 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 30, 1990

As a “public official,” a police officer is protected by a qualified immunity against civil liability for non-malicious acts performed within the scope of his authority. … This immunity is in no way circumscribed by describing clearly discretionary duties as if they were mandatory in nature.

Alexsis, Inc. v. Terry

675 So. 2d 1321 · Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · Feb 23, 1996

He received some compensation from the escrow account established by the ASDD to compensate injured employees. Southern Risk Services, Inc. ("Southern"), administered that escrow account for the ASDD. … Clearly, the ADOT is immune from suit as an agency of the State of Alabama. 3 Had the ADOT opted to administer its Employee Injury Program with its own employees, there is no question that sovereign immunity would apply.

Saade v. Villarreal

280 S.W.3d 511 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Feb 26, 2009

In their second issue, appellants contend that the trial court erred in determining that they failed to establish their right to common law official immunity. … Examined together, the seven factors identified in Kassen support our conclusion that appellants have not established their entitlement to official immunity. 3. Dr.

Molnar v. Star-Ledger

193 N.J. Super. 12 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 17, 1984

The qualified privilege conferred upon Minerbrook has been defined in Coleman v. … Super. 214, 220 (App.Div. 1975) we noted that: We have long recognized the existence of a qualified privilege that confers immunity upon a public official for defamation uttered in relation to matters committed by law to

Shands Jacksonville Medical Center, Inc., and University of Florida Board of Trustees

District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 11, 2024

Because the government is immune to suit, it “cannot be sued, except with its own consent. … the ALJ clearly cannot possess.