Case law

Franatovich v. St. Bernard Parish Government

2011 La.App. 4 Cir. 1128 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Mar 21, 2012

The district court clearly erred in finding Darryl Franatovich only 10% at fault, where the evidence established that he drove into an open and obvious roadside ditch in broad daylight when he voluntarily left the roadway … Co., 2002-1138 (La.5/20/03), 851 So.2d 959 , explained that the immunity from liability established in La.

Norris v. United States

Superior Court of Delaware · Oct 8, 2025

an arguable basis in law or that the defendants are clearly entitled to immunity from suit.”2 2. … find a sweet spot of comfort within stressful situations . . . .”5 These statements fail to articulate a recognized legal duty owed by the United States to the Plaintiff, nor do they set forth facts that, if true, would establish

Graff v. State of New York

126 A.D.3d 1081 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 5, 2015

"[I]n the field of traffic design engineering, [defendant] is accorded a qualified immunity from liability arising out of a highway planning decision. . . . … Under this doctrine of qualified immunity, a governmental body may be held liable when its study of a traffic condition is plainly inadequate or there is no reasonable basis for its traffic plan.

Runnels v. Newell

179 Md. App. 168 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 28, 2008

Newell also argues that he was entitled to federal qualified immunity with regard to the 42 U.S.C. section 1983 claim. … For that reason, this court finds that Newell is entitled to federal qualified immunity on Count I.

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.

Joan Stephens v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

529 S.W.3d 63 · Court of Appeals of Tennessee · Nov 30, 2016

Stephens and therefore immune from common law liability. Bayer CropScience acknowledged that the existing scheduling order established December 1, 2014, as the deadline for amendments to the pleadings. … Plaintiffs argue that Rule 12.02 required the trial court to confine its review to the pleadings in order to determine whether immunity was established.

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

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.

Steinberg v. Commonwealth

46 Pa. Commw. 105 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 19, 1979

Pennsylvania, 479 Pa. 384 , 388 A.2d 709 (1978), wherein the judicially developed concept of sovereign immunity in Pennsylvania was abandoned. … Failing to adhere to established procedures and policies for operation of the Center; c. Failing to provide adequate and necessary security and protection for the employees of the Center; d.

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.

Ellis v. D'Angelo

116 Cal. App. 2d 310 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 27, 1953

“This general rule denying immunity must, however, be qualified in a number of respects. In many torts, the state of mind of the actor is an important element. … The only *320 allegation of knowledge by the parent was that the child was “disposed to climb about the furniture,” clearly not enough to show dangerous conduct. In Weber v.

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.

Commonwealth, Department of Transportation v. Koons

661 A.2d 490 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 7, 1995

Summary judgment is only appropriate 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 he is entitled … Our Supreme Court has stated that, since the General Assembly intended to exempt the Commonwealth from immunity only in specific clearly defined situations, the real estate exception to the Act must be strictly construed

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.

Wild v. Carriage Funeral Holdings, Inc.

458 N.J. Super. 416 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 27, 2019

It also shields qualifying users from civil penalties and other administrative actions. N.J.S.A. 24:6I-6(b). … On the other hand, plaintiff alleges a disability that qualified his use of medical marijuana.

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

Davis v. Houston Independent School District

654 S.W.2d 818 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jun 21, 1983

Davis] was vague and did not clearly remember the exact circumstances, but she did say the boy was fighting another student and she walked over to intervene and the blow was accidental.” … However, the summary judgment proof does not establish as a matter of law (1) that Mrs.

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.”