Case law

Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services v. Rosa Maria Beltran

Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso) · Aug 31, 2011

In its plea, the Department asserted that it was protected by sovereign immunity because the "Legislature has not clearly and unambiguously waived sovereign immunity for [the Anti-Retaliation Law]" as required after the Legislature's … As a result, because the Political Subdivisions Law no longer clearly and unambiguously waives governmental immunity, the Court dismissed Ms. Norman's retaliatory-discharge claim. Id.

Rumbold v. Town of Bureau

221 Ill. App. 3d 222 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 31, 1991

What the Court left undecided, however, was whether a municipality was entitled to any type of qualified immunity. In Owen v. City of Independence (1980), 445 U.S. 622 , 63 L. Ed. 2d 673 , 100 S. … While denying that any type of immunity exists for municipalities, the Court reiterated that qualified immunity does exist for public officials who have acted in good faith.

State v. Clifton

197 N.C. App. 232 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 19, 2009

Instead, he requested an instruction on "witness with immunity or quasi immunity." … When the trial court noted that Butler was not granted immunity, defendant argued that Butler had testified in accordance with a plea bargain, and he believed "that would qualify."

South Carolina Insurance Reserve Fund v. East Richland County Public Service District

417 S.C. 149 · Court of Appeals of South Carolina · Mar 23, 2016

The Act also lists several exceptions to the waiver of immunity. S.C.Code Ann. § 15-78-60 (2005 & Supp.2015). … The insurance company “bears the burden of establishing [an] exclusion’s applicability.” Owners Ins. Co. v. Clayton, 364 S.C. 555, 560 , 614 S.E.2d 611, 614 (2005).

Johnstown Redevelopment Authority v. Commonwealth

124 Pa. Commw. 344 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 22, 1989

to establish a prima facie■ case. … The Authority has waived this governmental immunity argument for failure to raise this argument before the Commission. See Pa. R.A.P. 1551.

Haytasingh v. City of San Diego

California Court of Appeal · Nov 10, 2021

For example, one of the bill’s descriptions provided that “Assembly Bill No. 555, ‘by providing a qualified immunity, would limit a public entity’s duty to keep its land safe for certain recreational users.’ (Sen. … These statutory provisions are simply not similar; section 831.7 clearly provides far broader immunity than Civil Code section 846.11 11 While the immunity in section 831.7 is limited to hazardous recreational activities

Maldonado v. Allstate Ins. Co.

789 So. 2d 464 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jun 29, 2001

Allstate established that Mr. Maldonado "crossed over the river between Mexico and the United States." … Statutes often require that a person be a resident for at least a specific period in order to qualify for some legal benefit.

Windsor Realty & Mgt., Inc. v. Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer Dist.

2016 Ohio 4865 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 7, 2016

Clearly the operation of a sewer system includes a duty to use due diligence to inspect for defects. … from liability on its negligence claims against the city and NEORSD or that a defense to liability would necessarily apply to reinstate immunity even if Windsor were successful in establishing an exception to immunity

Green v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.

352 So. 2d 366 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jan 30, 1978

The reasoning is the legislature is simply stating more clearly what it meant to say in the first place. … The interpretive legislation does not create new rules, but merely establishes the meaning that the interpreted statute had from the time of its enactment.

Benoit v. Missouri Highway & Transportation Commission

33 S.W.3d 663 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Nov 21, 2000

Clearly, MHTC did not raise an objection to Glennon’s opinion. … Section 537.600.1(2) establishes a waiver of this immunity for injuries resulting from the operation of a motor vehicle and the condition of an entity’s property. Casey v. Chung, 989 S.W.2d 592, 593 (Mo.App. 1998).

Henderson v. Commissioners of Barnstable

49 Mass. App. Ct. 455 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jun 20, 2000

. § 1983 , and denying the latters’ claims of qualified immunity. … . § 1983 , unless their conduct violates “clearly established” constitutional rights. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). Anderson v.

Camargo v. Toledo

2024 Ohio 488 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 9, 2024

Chapter 2744, and qualified immunity. {¶ 5} The city’s April 11, 2022 motion for summary judgment argued that Camargo failed to raise a cognizable tort claim. … With immunity presumptively established, whether any exceptions to immunity under R.C. 2744.02(B) must be determined. {¶ 17} Camargo fails to argue the availability of any R.C. 2744.02(B) exceptions to immunity.

County of Los Angeles v. Hill

192 Cal. App. 4th 861 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 9, 2011

Among other things, it provides that qualified patients and their primary caregivers have limited immunity from prosecution for violation of various sections of the Health and Safety Code regulating marijuana including the … , dispensary, operator, establishment, or provider.” (§ 11362.768, subds.

Kellar v. VonHoltum

568 N.W.2d 186 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Aug 26, 1997

The district court determined that a letter sent by Michael LaVigne to Grand Marais State Bank customers was the only statement that appellants clearly identified as a basis of their claim of defamation occurring outside … Appellants, however, contend that the district court should have applied a qualified privilege, rather than an absolute privilege, to these statements.

Leon v. New York City Transit Authority

96 A.D.3d 554 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 19, 2012

To establish its entitlement to qualified immunity, a governmental body must show that “a public planning body considered and passed upon the same question of risk as would go to a jury in the case at issue” (Jackson v New … This is insufficient to demonstrate the TA’s entitlement to qualified immunity.

Wayne-Oakland Bank v. Adam's Rib

48 Mich. App. 144 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 27, 1973

We have already concluded the personal immunity of a parent, if established, is not a shield for the partnership entity. … Thus, the instruction claimed as error related to evidence properly admitted and was not clearly erroneous.

Hartman v. Hardin Memorial Hospital

587 S.W.2d 55 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jun 22, 1978

virtue of the doctrine of governmental immunity . . ..” … The summary judgment proof in the record before us clearly shows the defendant hospital is a publicly owned hospital and that the waiver of governmental immunity provided by the Tort Claims Act applies to it.

People of Michigan v. Michael Dean Dupre

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 17, 2020

This section grants qualifying patients broad immunity from prosecution. Kolanek, 491 Mich at 394-396. Section 7 of the MMMA on the other hand, prohibits specific acts that negate immunity. … Therefore, we discern no intent within the MMMA to immunize the visibly impaired driver from prosecution.

Mosby v. Liberty Mutual Insurance

2 Cal. Rptr. 3d 286 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 23, 2003

With regard to the mechanics of payment, the mishandling was clearly within the exclusivity rule. Thus the doctors could not state abuse of process claims. … Co. v. *1005 Superior Court (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 867, 872 [ 52 Cal.Rptr.2d 211 ] [“There is no question that section 1877.5 limits the immunity it establishes to reports made without malice.”].)

David L. Ross v. City of Jacksonville

274 So. 3d 1180 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jun 12, 2019

Finally, Appellant argues that the trial court applied an incorrect “qualified immunity” standard instead of an “immunity from liability” standard. … For almost a hundred years, Florida law has held that intentionally putting a victim in fear of getting hit by an automobile qualifies as aggravated assault. See Williamson v. State, 111 So. 124 (Fla. 1926).