Case law

City of Mesquite v. PKG Contracting, Inc.

263 S.W.3d 444 · Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas) · Oct 2, 2008

Because the legislature has clearly and unambiguously waived the City’s immunity from suit for the claims asserted against it in this case, we affirm the trial court’s order. … that are stated in the contract or established by the local government and incorporated into the contract — are enforceable except to the extent they conflict with the terms of the subchapter.

Anica v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

120 Wash. App. 481 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 5, 2004

Next, Anica claims that despite the IIA, Wal-Mart does not enjoy immunity from her lawsuit. … against individuals on the basis of national origin or citizenship status. 47 Congress therefore incorporated in IRCA protections for “protected individuals.” 48 Anica would derive no benefit even if we were to recognize a clearly

Lombard Public Facilities Corporation v. Department of Revenue

Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 9, 2008

Act (Tort Immunity Act) (745 ILCS 10/1--101.1 (West 2000)). … The burden to prove entitlement to the governmental body exemption was on LPFC, and -19- No. 2--06--0520 it did not clearly establish that section 2--5(11) of the Retailers

Penaloza v. Baptist Memorial Hospital

304 S.W.2d 203 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jun 14, 1957

Defendant specially pleaded its immunity from liability to plaintiff, alleging that it was not liable for the alleged negligent acts of its nurses and employees in the performance of delegable duties, as a matter of law. … She testified that it was clearly marked on the box in which it was contained “Potassium Permanganate”.

Pree v. Hymbaugh

23 Ill. App. 2d 211 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 1, 1959

It is a well established rule that the question as to whether or not a plaintiff has been guilty of contributory negligence is a matter of fact for the jury to determine and becomes a question of law only w’'en the evidence … is so clearly insufficient to establish due care that all reasonable minds in the exercise of fair and honest judgment would reach the conclusion that there was contributory negligence.

Johns v. Horton

149 Ohio App. 3d 252 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 26, 2002

Court of Claims after immunity had been established was improper because there was no need for an additional immunity determination. … On the one hand, the statute clearly states that the Court of Claims has the exclusive jurisdiction to determine initially whether an employee is immune, while the court of common pleas has jurisdiction over the underlying

Acevedo v. Essex County

207 N.J. Super. 579 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 21, 1985

Plaintiff has failed to establish the elements for negligent infliction of emotional distress. The law concerning recovery for negligent infliction of emotional distress is clearly set forth in Portee v. … THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS HAVE IMMUNITY BECAUSE AN INCORRECT AUTOPSY REPORT IS A MISREPRESENTATION UNDER N.J.S.A. 59:3-10, FOR WHICH THERE IS IMMUNITY. THIS IMMUNITY FOLLOWS TO THE COUNTY.

Warren R Cozby and Lillian a Cozby v. the City of Waco, Texas, Jointly and Severally

Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco) · Dec 4, 2002

or official immunity. … The City did not seek a summary judgment on the basis of its employee’s qualified or official immunity. Thus, we do not have jurisdiction to review that portion of the trial court’s order granting the summary judgment.

Malloy v. State

148 N.J. Super. 15 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 4, 1977

The act re-established governmental immunity from tort liability except for specific provisions therein establishing liability. … I perceive no warrant to qualify that term in this section of the Tort Claims Act simply because the commentator provided a reason for its enactment. The comment is not the statute and should not be given that effect.

Wright v. City of Los Angeles

113 Cal. Rptr. 2d 352 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 2, 2001

That is precisely what sections 835 and 855.4 have done, i.e., made it clear that the immunity provided in section 855.4 prevails over the liability established in section 835. … Next, the Wrights assert that immunity found in section 855.4 is not applicable to the facts of this case because the section was “clearly intended to apply in situations where a public entity acts in response to an outbreak

Martinez v. County of Los Angeles

47 Cal. App. 4th 334 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 11, 1996

“Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense against section 1983 claims. [Citation.] … With these principles in mind, the undisputed facts of this case properly call for invocation of the qualified immunity doctrine.

Estes v. Monroe

16 Cal. Rptr. 3d 616 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 28, 2004

Feres , however, does not rest on principles of justiciability or immunity. … rules of immunity (as opposed to immunity specifically prescribed in the Constitution) should be held a priori to describe the limit of those concerns here than in any other field.”

S.T.J. v. P.M.

556 So. 2d 244 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jan 24, 1990

In this appeal, appellant argues that the immunity urged is inapplicable to this case because defendants established a psychologist-patient relationship by undertaking treatment of the child. … With respect to testimony in judicial proceedings, the immunity of parties and witnesses from subsequent liability was well established in English common law. Briscoe v.

McConnell v. St. Louis County

655 S.W.2d 654 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jun 14, 1983

Sec. 537.600 creates two situations in which sovereign immunity is waived, i.e.: (1) operation of motor vehicles and (2) condition of property. Plaintiff’s cause of action is clearly within the first situation. … Plaintiff’s verdict is a matter of record, and we are unable to see how our reduction of the judgment against the county to the limits established by law can preclude plaintiff from establishing the amount of her loss under

Gray v. University of Colorado Hospital Authority

284 P.3d 191 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Jul 5, 2012

employees have qualified immunity. … willful and wanton." § 24-10-105(1); Brace, 919 P.2d at 245 ("The CGIA expressly provides that an *198 employee loses that qualified immunity if the employee's act was 'willful and wanton. "). 1 35 If a public employee acts

Don Houston, M.D., Inc. v. Intermountain Health Care, Inc.

311 Utah Adv. Rep. 14 · Court of Appeals of Utah · Feb 21, 1997

Houston that a qualified physician, unaffiliated with the Hospital, would further review his gastric bypass and gallbladder surgical practices. Dr. … In the instant case, the trial court clearly intended to certify the 1993 order under Rule 54(b), but failed to incorporate its terminology. 3 Accordingly, we temporarily remanded this case for the trial court to remedy its

Denton County v. Johnson

17 S.W.3d 46 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Apr 20, 2000

The legislature amended the Political Subdivisions Law again in 1989, requiring an election of remedies between the Anti-Retaliation Law and the Whistleblower Act, for which the Legislature had clearly *50 waived immunity … We also note that Louvier was decided under the Anti-Retaliation Law. as it applied before the Political Subdivisions Act was amended to clearly waive sovereign immunity for political subdivisions. .

Brenden Kapusta v. Dr. Bryce Bennett, Oasis Psychological Services, Bianca Boling

Court of Appeals of Arizona · Jan 30, 2026

And the fact that Oasis discharged Kapusta in June 2021 does not, on its own, establish that he knew or should have known the facts underlying the cause of action at that time. See Doe, 191 Ariz. 313, ¶ 29. … ¶22 The majority reasons that the Oasis Defendants do not qualify for judicial immunity because they acted without “direct connection” to the superior court’s orders.

City of Houston v. Leslie G. Wills

Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · Jul 9, 2024

Garcia, 253 S.W.3d 653, 660 (Tex. 2008) (holding that Labor Code chapter 21 clearly and unambiguously waives immunity from suit) (“Garcia I”). … To establish a prima facie case of discrimination with indirect evidence, the plaintiff must show that: (1) she was a member of a protected class, (2) she was qualified for the position she applied for; (3) she suffered an

Carletti v. Department of Transportation

190 A.3d 766 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 17, 2018

The rules of evidence permit a qualified expert to “testify in the form of opinion.” Pa.R.E. 702. … Clearly, PennDOT requested a more specific instruction, which the trial court acknowledged when it said to PennDOT’s counsel, “[Y]ou have an exception on the record, of course.”