Case law

Coburn v. City of Dyersburg

774 S.W.2d 610 · Court of Appeals of Tennessee · Mar 29, 1989

liable for any claim arising under state law for which the governmental entity has immunity under the provisions of this chapter unless the governmental entity has expressly waived such immunity. … Clearly, plaintiff is not an intended beneficiary of the insurance contract between DES and the insurer.

Scameheorn v. Bucks

167 Mich. App. 302 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 21, 1988

Where immunity from *307 suit is at issue, the complaint must plead facts in avoidance of immunity. … In our opinion, the allegations in plaintiffs complaint failed to establish the existence of an intentionally created nuisance.

Hamed v. Pfeifer

647 N.E.2d 669 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 13, 1995

The federal court's ruling clearly permitted Pfeifer to use the tape recording at trial in an attempt to prove General Accident's defense, albeit unsuccessful, of fraud. … Gastineau (1991), Ind.App., 568 N.E.2d 1020 , 1024 trans. denied (qualified privilege); Boydston v. Chrysler Credit Corp. (1987), Ind.App., 511 N.E.2d 318, 321 (same).

Maryland Transportation Authority Police Lodge 34 v. Maryland Transportation Authority

195 Md. App. 124 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 30, 2010

But, to the extent that this dicta ever had force, it has clearly been superseded by later cases. *207 In McCulloch , the Court upheld the Governor’s unilateral executive order establishing a collective bargaining regime … "[T]he General Assembly has the power to establish the terms under which it will permit a waiver of immunity...." Rios v.

DeCordova v. State

18 Brief Times Rptr. 350 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Feb 24, 1994

In that act, the General Assembly reinstated immunity from tort liability for public entities in some circumstances and in others established recovery limits, declaring that “unlimited liability could disrupt or make prohibitively … The undisputed evidence established that the standard of care owed by the hospital pharmacy was clearly defined and was breached.

Carey v. Siepmann

316 Or. App. 470 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 15, 2021

establish abuse of the privilege. … three opportunities to allege facts in their complaint sufficient to establish a claim but were unable to do so,” and plaintiffs have not assigned error to that ruling.

George MacKie v. Katrin Rouse-Weir.

Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jul 31, 2023

, or, alternatively, qualified immunity because Mackie had not "plausibly alleged facts that Dr. … In the alternative, the defendant argues that she is entitled to qualified immunity.

Victor Gomez v. State

Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso) · Jul 11, 2014

The court may restrict voir dire where the questions are duplicitous or repetitious or where the venireman has already stated his or her position clearly and unequivocally; further, the court may restrict questions that … The trial court ordered that each witness be provided use immunity and separately instructed the witnesses that, other than the commission of perjury, the grant of use immunity cloaked each of them from prosecution for

Robinson v. City of Philadelphia

666 A.2d 1141 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 26, 1995

Petrovitch, 161 Pa.Cmwlth. 261 , 636 A.2d 1248 (1994), states clearly that Agresta was overruled by the Supreme Court in Gray . In our view, Robinson’s omission was not mere inadvertence. … Cmwlth. 655, 634 A.2d 677 (1993), as are arguments which counter well established rules of law. Murphy v.

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).

Coburn v. Sievert

35 Cal. Rptr. 3d 596 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 10, 2005

The immunity associated with release at the end of the holding period is not qualified by the phrase “if the provisions of Section 5152 have been met.” … The Bragg case involved a clearly presented alternative motive for the early release—economic concerns based on the detainee’s lack of insurance.

Bednarik v. Bednarik

18 N.J. Misc. 633 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Oct 15, 1940

The tests shall be made by duly qualified physicians, to be appointed by the court. … To subject a person against his will to a blood test is an assault and battery, and clearly an invasion of his personal privacy. It involves the sticking of a surgical needle into his body.

Veldhuis v. Allan

164 Mich. App. 131 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 2, 1987

The function of a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(0(10), is well established: A motion for summary judgment under GCR 1963, 117.2(3), now MCR 2.116(0(10), asserts that no genuine issue of material fact exists … The immunity in this section shall not apply to a person, organization, or entity that acts with malice.

County of San Diego v. Superior Court

242 Cal. App. 4th 460 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 20, 2015

Specifically, he argued the County was not immune based on exceptions to immunity for its failure to maintain the rope swing in good repair (§ 831.7, subd. … A " 'hazardous recreational activity' " is defined by a nonexclusive list of activities that qualify, including "tree rope swinging." (§ 831.7, subd. (b)(1)-(3); Avila, supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 154.)

City of Santa Cruz v. Superior Court

198 Cal. App. 3d 999 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 22, 1988

Also, Gabrielsen does not hold himself out as qualified in the areas of fluvial mechanics, coastal processes, hydrology and geomorphology, nor does he claim expertise regarding the processes operating in the San Lorenzo River … Other decisions have noted that the legislative history of Government Code section 831.2 clearly shows the Legislature intended to preclude liability for unimproved natural conditions unless the public entity engaged *1007

Darren B. Swain v. Corporal Jason Hutson, Officer Dora Dewall, Sergeant Daniel Henning, Court Clerk Norma Williams, Judge Stewart Milner, Judge Rosalia Maddock, and Does 1-5

Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth) · Oct 8, 2009

And in his prayer, he asks us to remand this case “with instructions establish[ing] [section 1983] as the ‘law of the case.’” … (“Moreover, state and federal constitutional claims are not barred by immunity.

Com. v. Marmillion, M.

2023 Pa. Super. 267 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 13, 2023

It is the defendant who carries the burden of proof to establish she is entitled to immunity under the Act. See Commonwealth v. Lehman, 231 A.3d 877 (Pa. 2020). … Even though the Act potentially provides immunity for Marmillion’s possession of a controlled substance charge, she has failed to establish the trial court erred by failing to grant her immunity for that offense under the

Johnson v. Sandel

895 S.W.2d 490 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Mar 21, 1995

Because official immunity is an affirmative defense, the burden is on the defendant to-establish all elements of the defense. 1 City of Lancaster v. Chambers, 883 S.W.2d 650, 653 (Tex.1994). … The terms "qualified,’' "official,” and "quasi-judicial” immunity are for all practical purposes the same. City of Houston v. Kilburn, 849 S.W.2d 810 , 812 n. 1 (Tex.1993); Travis v.

Sunset Beach Investments, LLC v. Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.

207 So. 3d 1012 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jan 4, 2017

Sunset Beach’s test would require courts to decide what qualifies as “special education,” what qualifies as “training,” what is acceptable “experience,” and related issues. … These statutory definitions clearly indicate that being an “engineer intern” does not make a person an engineer.

Yono v. Department of Transportation

306 Mich. App. 671 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 23, 2014

presenting evidence sufficient to establish, at the very least, that there is a genuine issue of fact as to the existence of immunity. … to present evidence that establishes a question of fact as to whether the movant is entitled to immunity as a matter of law.