Case law

Texas Association of School Boards Risk Management Fund // Southwest Texas Junior College v. Southwest Texas Junior College // Cross-Appellee, Texas Association of School Boards Risk Management Fund

Texas Court of Appeals, 15th District · Oct 2, 2025

At worst Plaintiff has presented clear evidence that its pleadings seek delay damages that the Texas legislature has specifically permitted recovery for, and at best, Plaintiff has established that delay 28 CR 12 … Direct damages for breach – ‘the necessary and usual result of the defendant’s wrongful act’ – certainly qualify”) (quoting Basic Capital Mgmt. v.

Department of Public Safety v. Johnson.

343 Ga. App. 22 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Sep 28, 2017

The plaintiff opposing the motion and seeking to benefit from establishing a waiver of sovereign immunity has the burden of proof to establish a waiver, and the trial court’s ruling on the factual issues is reviewed on … subject matter jurisdiction under OCGA § 9-11-12 (b) (1), we find that the factors (as set forth above in Harrison, 253 Ga. at 214-215) controlling the trial court’s exercise of discretion under OCGA § 9-11-12 (d) are clearly

Siebert v. Okun, M.D.

560 P.3d 7 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Sep 23, 2024

(“To create the patient’s compensation fund, an annual surcharge shall be levied on all health care providers qualifying under . . . … We presume that the district court’s conclusion is correct, and Defendants bear the burden of establishing that the district court erred, see Corona v.

Hall v. Fort Frye Local School District Board of Education

111 Ohio App. 3d 690 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 14, 1996

Thus, appellee’s initial decision in our case to purchase and install the irrigation system clearly involved the exercise of protected judgment or discretion, for which appellee is entitled to immunity pursuant to the provisions … In our view, such a decision would not be immunized. To do so would clearly foster the perpetuation of dangerous conditions.

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

Washington v. Department of Human Resources

241 Ga. App. 319 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Nov 23, 1999

Among other issues, Washington contests the trial court’s determination that the defendants’ actions were protected by official or qualified immunity. … As no liability has been established, the application of this Code section is premature.

Commonwealth v. Tyson

800 A.2d 327 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 29, 2002

In adopting this qualified privilege, this Court stated that the party seeking disclosure must establish the following to overcome the privilege: (1) it *332 exhausted attempts to obtain the information from other sources … The court’s December 13, 2000, order clearly indicates that the dominant purpose of the contempt sanction was to coerce appellants into complying with the subpoenas.

Begier v. Strom

46 Cal. App. 4th 877 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 19, 1996

In Passman, supra, 34 Cal.App.4th at pages 616-617, the court cited a string of precedent cases holding that a communication designed to initiate a criminal prosecution qualifies for immunity as a publication “in any other … However, only qualified immunity is granted to persons who are not statutorily obligated to make a report: “Any other person reporting a known or suspected instance of child abuse shall not incur civil or criminal liability

El-Mumit v. Fogg

542 So. 2d 149 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Apr 11, 1989

Exceptions of no cause of action based on judicial absolute immunity and prosecutorial qualified immunity on behalf of, respectively, Judge Fogg and Assistant District Attorneys Quin, Ramsey, and Waterman, were granted as … With these allegations, plaintiff is clearly attempting to have us review his criminal proceedings. The appeal from that conviction, by operation of the law, went directly to the Louisiana Supreme Court. La. Const. art.

Bernasconi v. City of Barre: Hope Cemetary

Vermont Superior Court · Nov 22, 2017

It requires that such claims be brought against the municipality, which may raise any defense that would have been available to the employee, including individual immunity defenses such as qualified immunity, but which may … The City offers no authority for this argument and has not established in any meaningful way that a trier of fact could reasonably find that Hope Cemetery somehow has lost its principal identity as a cemetery and now is a

People v. Bartolomeo

126 A.D.2d 375 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 30, 1987

That’s clearly an admission. It would have been relevant. It would have been admissible. "[The Prosecutor]: It’s clearly hearsay, Your Honor. What Manteiga had to say to his wife from—about Bartolomeo. "the court: Yes. … Caprisecca had executed a waiver of immunity when he testified before the Grand Jury; however, it was never revealed that he had been promised immunity from prosecution for those crimes.

Stewart v. Richland Memorial Hospital

350 S.C. 589 · Court of Appeals of South Carolina · Jun 3, 2002

Although a governmental entity has the initial “burden of establishing a limitation upon liability or an exception to the waiver of immunity” applies, the plaintiff must still prove that the governmental entity has waived … immunity.

Port Neches-Groves Independent School District v. Pyramid Constructors, L.L.P.

281 S.W.3d 142 · Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont) · Feb 5, 2009

The District argues Pyramid failed to develop a record on remand to establish a waiver of governmental immunity. … For waiver to be implied, “intent must be clearly demonstrated by the surrounding facts and circumstances.” Jernigan v. Langley, 111 S.W.3d 153, 156 (Tex.2003).

Canon-McMillan School District v. Bioni

127 Pa. Commw. 317 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 13, 1989

the real property exception to immunity. … The record clearly establishes that the lathe is physically connected with the real estate, and that it can be removed without destroying or materially injuring the lathe or the property to which it is annexed.

WPB RESIDENTS FOR INTEGRITY IN GOVERNMENT, INC. v. SHARON "SHANON" MATERIO

District Court of Appeal of Florida · Oct 30, 2019

Resha, 648 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 1994),] [w]e held that an order denying summary judgment based upon a claim of qualified immunity should be subject to interlocutory review to the extent that the order turns … Rather, we requested the Florida Bar Appellate Court Rules Committee to submit a proposed amendment that would add a category of non-final orders for qualified immunity in a federal civil rights claim

Bell v. Kater

2008 Pa. Super. 18 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 13, 2008

In order to establish immunity under the Work *298 ers’ Compensation Act, the defendant is required to establish that her act or omission occurred while she was in the “same employ” as the plaintiff, that is, in the course … Absent immunity by the Workers’ Compensation Act, the Bells’ complaint in negligence was clearly within the jurisdiction of the court of common pleas. ¶ 28 Kater’s reliance on LeFlar v. Gulf Creek Indus.

Kuehner Et Ux. v. Parsons

107 Pa. Commw. 61 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 22, 1987

Summary judgment is only proper when, after examining the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party clearly establishes that it is entitled … The statute, however, clearly states that fraud and willful misconduct are excluded from the exceptions to immunity. 42 Pa. C. S. §8542(a)(2).

Penland v. Redwood Sanitary Sewer Service District

146 Or. App. 225 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 5, 1997

To the contrary, the evidence established that the Board of Directors, as well as Mr. … Normally, a choice within the permissible range, in order to qualify for immunity, is one that has been made by a supervisor or a policy-making body.” Mosley, 315 Or at 92 (citations omitted).

William Winchester v. Christy Little

Court of Appeals of Tennessee · Dec 31, 1998

Mueller, 732 F.2d at 1459; and discussion of §1983 immunity supra. Appellant argues that Appellee is only entitled to qualified (“good faith”) immunity pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. §37-1-149. … Appellant is incorrect in his assertion that Appellee was entitled to only qualified immunity based upon this statute.

Los Angeles County-U.S.C. Medical Center v. Superior Court

155 Cal. App. 3d 454 · California Court of Appeal · May 7, 1984

They argue that clearly the first few words in section 854.5 are modified by “in custody.” … Forde established that “confinement” for the purpose of section 856.2 turns on the person’s status as a patient “confined” for mental illness, not whether physical restraints were imposed. 6.