Case law

Johnson v. Davis

178 S.W.3d 230 · Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · Nov 3, 2005

Additionally, they argued that they were entitled to official and qualified immunity and that they were entitled to more specific pleading with regard to the allegations purportedly made against them in their individual capacities … They further asserted that they were entitled to a clear and concise statement setting forth the acts and/or omissions on which Johnson purportedly relied to establish a waiver of sovereign immunity.

Williams v. Superior Uniform Group, Inc.

847 So. 2d 244 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · May 22, 2003

To effectuate its purpose, the Act grants an employer immunity from non-intentional torts. This immunity also applies to third persons, including executive officers. … Mehlman does not appear to be qualified to give this opinion in this case. However, even if Dr.

Pennington v. Jenkins-Essex Construction, Inc.

238 S.W.3d 660 · Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Nov 3, 2006

Pennington correctly notes that immunity pursuant to the exclusivity provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act is *664 an affirmative defense that must be established by the claimant (Jenkins-Essex). See Gordon v. … Jenkins-Essex argues that these uncontested facts support the court’s conclusion that it qualified as a “contractor” as defined in KRS 342.610.

Rogers v. State ex rel. Department of Public Safety & Corrections

7 La.App. 3 Cir. 1060 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jan 30, 2008

In their sole assignment of error, Defendants assert that the trial court erred in denying their peremptory exception of no right of action where there was no evidence in the record establishing that plain *922 tiffs possessed … JjDISCUSSION An appellate court may not set aside a trial court’s finding of fact in the absence of manifest error or unless it is clearly wrong. Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La.1989).

Eben v. State of California

130 Cal. App. 3d 416 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 9, 1982

Com., 1963 Recommendation Relating to Sovereign Immunity, p. 852). But the legislative modifications clearly demonstrate a contrary view. … However, even if this were true, plaintiff is faced with the rule that to qualify public property as improved so as to take it outside the immunity statute “some form of physical change in the condition of the property at

Schaffer v. Spirit Mountain Recreation Area Authority

541 N.W.2d 357 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Dec 26, 1995

Operating a ski hill, on a fee basis, is clearly proprietary and for which the City can be [held] liable * * *. Spirit Mountain appeals that part of the order pertaining to the immunity defense. … The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that all of the elements of section 335 have been met in order to defeat an immunity claim. Martinez v.

Jubilee Academic Center Inc. D/B/A Jubilee Academies v. Cecilia Septimo

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Apr 11, 2024

unless immunity has been waived by the legislature. … To establish a national origin discrimination claim, a plaintiff must show: (1) she was a member of a protected class, (2) she was qualified for her employment position, (3) she was subject to an adverse employment decision

Texas Association of Counties Risk Management Pool v. Dianna Adams, as Surviving Spouse of Neil Adams

Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont) · May 7, 2026

Combined, sections 406.031(a) and 401.011(27)(D) clearly express the legislature’s intent to waive governmental immunity for workers’ compensation claims against 3 Although we agree TACRMP is a governmental … unless a waiver of immunity applies. 8 governmental entities that qualify as insurance carriers by self-insuring, individually or collectively.

Bacon v. County of Westchester

149 A.D.2d 451 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 10, 1989

To establish a cause of action to recover damages for false imprisonment, the plaintiffs must show that "(1) the defendants intended to confine [them], (2) the plaintiff[s] were conscious of the confinement, (3) the plaintiff … Thus, issues of fact exist concerning the reasonableness of the defendants’ conduct and the applicability of their qualified immunity (see, Parvi v City of Kingston, 41 NY2d 553 ; Sindle v New York City Tr.

Turner v. City of Greenville

197 N.C. App. 562 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 16, 2009

Following a hearing, the trial court granted the City of Greenville’s motion for summary judgment on the defenses of federal qualified immunity and public officer’s immunity. … “Law enforcement operations” are “clearly governmental” activities for which a municipality is generally immune. Id. at 253, 517 S.E.2d at 175 .

in the Interest of A.J.E., a Child

Texas Court of Appeals, 11th District (Eastland) · May 10, 2012

“A trial court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily or unreasonably, or when it clearly fails to correctly analyze or apply the law.” Id. (citing In re D.S., 76 S.W.3d 512, 516 (Tex. App. … The letter establishes that immunization of the child is not medically contraindicated and that it complies with the recommendations of the Centers for Disease Control and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Velasquez v. Regents of Northern N.M. Coll.

484 P.3d 970 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Sep 28, 2020

Money to establish the labs would come from grants. As part of their presentation, Plaintiff and Dr. … The choices before the Legislature were therefore whether to waive immunity, which it clearly did, as we have explained, and whether that waiver should include both types of interest or just one of the two.

Gonzales v. City of Atwater

6 Cal. App. 5th 929 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 15, 2016

The trial court granted the motion, as the county established all three elements of design immunity—discretionary approval was established through evidence that the engineer who approved the plans had the discretion and authority … Conclusion Since all of the elements of design immunity are established, the City is immune from liability for any dangerous condition of the intersection.18 Based on the City’s 18While evidence was produced

State v. Signal Drilling, LLC Jaten Oil Company And Riparia, LC

Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo) · Oct 30, 2019

established in Texas A&M University— Kingsville v. … and the lack of a qualified “gradient boundary line survey” for the entire length of the Canadian River.

Picone v. Talbott

29 Md. App. 536 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 31, 1975

of the Plaintiffs case since the evidence clearly established probable cause [for the arrest].” … immunity.”

Hauber v. County of Yakima

27 P.3d 257 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 24, 2001

The S & R dive on March 15, 1997 clearly qualified as a mission for the purposes of chapter 38.52 RCW. … Hauber contends she is not subject to the immunity of RCW 38.52.190 because that provision conflicts with her rights under RCW 38.52.080.

Scovill v. City of Astoria

129 Or. App. 240 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 27, 1994

The complaint does not disclose on its face that all elements necessary to establish immunity are present. See McBride v. Magnuson, 282 Or 433 , 578 P2d 1259 (1978). … Whether or not the city is correct about that, it has the burden of establishing the immunity defense.

Nardella v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority

34 A.3d 300 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 30, 2011

Nardella could not establish that the real estate exception to sovereign immunity, Section 8522(b)(4) of the Act commonly known as the Sovereign Immunity Act (Act), 42 Pa.C.S. § 8522(b)(4), applied in this matter. Ms. … noting that the dangerous condition must derive, originate, or have the real estate as its source in order to fall within the real estate exception, and substances such as ice, snow, or debris on the real estate do not qualify

State v. Brewer

11 Kan. App. 2d 655 · Court of Appeals of Kansas · Feb 12, 1987

The Kansas Supreme Court rejected the argument and concluded: “Clearly, the statute precluded the State from granting immunity to Ferguson for peijury in Bryant’s trial.” 228 Kan. at 247 . … That is, the State clearly could not grant Ferguson immunity for peijury committed while testifying under a grant of immunity.

McMahon Contracting, L.P. v. City of Carrollton

277 S.W.3d 458 · Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas) · Mar 17, 2009

“Mere reference” to a statute does not establish a waiver of governmental immunity and “is not enough to confer jurisdiction on the trial court.” See Tex. Dep’t of Criminal Justice v. … Accordingly, we conclude McMahon did not meet its burden to establish consent and show City’s immunity from suit was waived by “clear and unambiguous language” in the Prompt Payment Act.