Case law

People v. Harding

671 P.2d 975 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Oct 31, 1983

immunity.” … Applying Chambers , the trial court concluded that defendant had failed to establish that White’s statement was trustworthy.

State Farm Fire & Casualty Company v. Joseph Martin Radcliff and Coastal Property Management LLC, a/k/a CPM Construction of Indiana

987 N.E.2d 121 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 11, 2013

Dugan, 929 N.E.2d at 189 (“The designated evidence here clearly establishes that Komorowski’s statements were based on an accumulation of several years of careful personal observations and gathering of information from … Clearly, identical injuries may have radically different effects on different plaintiffs.

Johnson v. Decatur Park District

Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 25, 1998

This qualifies as the making of policy under the Harinek test. Park's actions were also clearly discretionary acts for which immunity from liability is granted by section 2-201 of the Act. … Such decisions were clearly discretionary and were thus immunized under section 2-201 of the Act.

San Jacinto County and San Jacinto Commissioners Court v. John Nunn, Sr.

203 S.W.3d 905 · Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont) · Sep 28, 2006

Nunn directs us to no other provisions establishing the County’s alleged waiver of its immunity from suit. … The construction of “executed” urged by Nunn could result in broadening waivers of sovereign immunity in situations where the governmental unit did not clearly intend to waive its sovereign immunity.

Costello v. City of Ellisville

921 S.W.2d 134 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Apr 30, 1996

The doctrine was established to protect officers from second-guessing. Green, 738 S.W.2d at 866 . … “This is so even though hindsight may demonstrate errors in judgment which might be branded as negligent by qualified evaluators.” Id.

D.B. ex rel. Recore v. County of Green Lake

368 Wis. 2d 282 · Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · Mar 2, 2016

As we set forth below, the scope and breadth of the investigation by the Police Department clearly falls within a discretionary analysis and as such the police are entitled to immunity. … s premise that the Police Department acted negligently for the purposes of an immunity defense, but the key facts are that the scope and breadth of the police investigation was clearly a discretionary act entitled to immunity

Tennessee Department of Health v. Christina K. Collins, RN, APRN

Court of Appeals of Tennessee · Nov 25, 2020

According to the State, the Expert’s experience in that specialty qualifies her to offer her opinions. … Collins cannot establish the applicability of Rule 68, which arguably implicates the State’s sovereign immunity.

B.A. Casteel and J.R. Casteel, Individually and as Administrators of C.A. Miller v. L. Tinkey

151 A.3d 261 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 5, 2016

To establish common law negligence, the following elements must be generally met: 1. … Thus, Appellants cannot establish that an exception to sovereign immunity applies in this case. 21 Accordingly, for all of the foregoing reasons, we affirm.

Cody Waldrip v. Angela Waldrip, City of Bloomington, Indiana, Monroe County, Indiana, State of Indiana

976 N.E.2d 102 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 20, 2012

However, on those counts the complaint clearly refers to “the Defendants” jointly. … Even if the complaint clearly alleged that Angela was acting for her own benefit in abusing her position to obtain the protective order, thus negating immunity under Indiana Code Section 35-13-3-5(c)(5), we still must

Vallejo City Unified School Dist. v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal · Jan 27, 2026

Having established the school district’s common law duty to supervise, the majority rejected the district’s defense that the off-campus situs of the plaintiff’s injury ipso facto immunized it. … “[I]f not fairly termed dictum [citations], [the discussion] was a carefully qualified holding. It called the Legislature ‘principally concerned’ with before- and after-school travel to and from home. [Citation.]

Lewis v. City of New York

131 A.D.3d 1134 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 23, 2015

The City established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the ground of qualified immunity.

Archer v. Rockingham County

144 N.C. App. 550 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 3, 2001

Sovereign immunity “is firmly established in our law today, and by legislation has been recognized by the General Assembly as the public policy of the State.” Steelman v. … “It is well established that the State is immune from suit under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, until and unless it consents to be sued.” Slade v. Vernon, 110 N.C. App. 422, 426 , 429 S.E.2d 744, 746 (1993).

Thomas v. COUNTY COM'RS OF SHAWNEE COUNTY

198 P.3d 182 · Court of Appeals of Kansas · Dec 12, 2008

they hired her or thereafter, that Gillespie was not qualified to run the DOC. … Clearly, Shawnee County (as an entity) cannot be deemed liable for nonexistent negligent acts performed by these individuals.

Milan Jurich, Personal Representative of the Estate of Rade Jurich, and Rajna Jurich v. Indiana Department of Transportation

126 N.E.3d 846 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 29, 2019

In determining what acts qualify for discretionary function immunity under the ITCA, our Supreme Court has adopted the planning- operational test. Peavler v. … The party seeking immunity has the burden of establishing that its conduct comes within the provisions of the ITCA. Id.

Williams v. Missouri Highway & Transportation Commission

16 S.W.3d 605 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Mar 28, 2000

On remand, the court will examine the facts and circumstances in context, in determining whether the hypothesis that the intersection is a dangerous condition qualifies for submissibility to the jury. … As already stated, we do not know whether the intersection in this case can qualify as a "dangerous condition," because we do not know all of the facts.

Macareno v. City of New York

187 A.D.3d 1164 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 28, 2020

immunity ( Escalera v Lunn , 361 F3d 737, 746 [2d Cir]; see Williams v City of New York , 153 AD3d 1301, 1304 ). … For the same reason, Officer Rendon was not entitled to summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity ( see Williams v City of New York , 129 AD3d 1066, 1067 ).

McCoy v. Illinois International Port District

334 Ill. App. 3d 462 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 30, 2002

McCoy argues that Matthews did not have to be specifically named in the contract to qualify as a third-party beneficiary. … It argues that, to qualify as a third-party beneficiary, the actual parties to the contract must specifically intend that the contract directly benefit the third party in question.

Betts-Lucas v. Hartmann

87 S.W.3d 310 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jul 30, 2002

The failure to satisfy that duty clearly constitutes conduct arising out of Hartgrave’s official duties. … Regarding official immunity, the line between a discretionary and ministerial duty is not clearly demarcated, however. It depends upon the nature of the act and “the degree of reason and judgment required.” Id. at 681 .

Bearden v. Coker

121 So. 3d 359 · Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · Jun 22, 2012

under (1) Article I, § 14, of the Alabama Constitution of 1901, (2) the doctrine of state-agent immunity, (3) the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, (4) the doctrine of qualified immunity, and (5) the … “There was no mention of my domicile being located outside of Weaver, to my knowledge, after my election as Mayor of Weaver, Alabama until I qualified to run for the Alabama State Legislature against the Republican establishment

Eastburn v. REGIONAL FIRE PROTECTION AUTH.

119 Cal. Rptr. 2d 655 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 31, 2002

[A] qualified immunity from liability shall be provided for public entities and emergency rescue personnel providing emergency services. "(b) ... … But where those services are instituted under the aegis of a fire protection agency, the qualified immunity of section 1799.107 applies.