Case law

Townships of Springdale v. Mowod

23 Pa. Commw. 298 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 13, 1976

The defendants raise the issues of sovereign immunity and laches. … Article III, Section 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1968 provides that: “No bill shall be passed containing more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title, except a general appropriation bill

Edgewater Inv. Associates v. Borough of Edgewater

201 N.J. Super. 267 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 22, 1985

Under the Act, a tenant who qualifies is immune from eviction for a period of 40 years. N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1k and N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.24h. … That principle clearly applies here. In sum, we hold that the applicant's net business income is to be utilized in determining whether he qualifies for protected tenancy status.

Cleaver v. Marrese

253 Ill. App. 3d 778 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 27, 1993

Immunity Act) (745 ILCS 10/1— 101 et seq. … It is well established in Illinois that where there are two statutory provisions, one of which is general and designed to apply to cases generally, and the other is particular and relates to only one subject, the particular

Ruffin v. Poland Enterprises, LLC

946 So. 2d 695 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Dec 13, 2006

The benefit to the employer is that once coverage is established, the employer enjoys immunity from most tort liability, including claims based on negligence. … Once coverage under the Act is established, an employer is guaranteed immunity from tort litigation, but the employee is not guaranteed relief. The issue of causation then determines whether relief is actually granted.

J. Faucon v. Parkland Area School District

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 21, 2025

The Supreme Court explained that the fire chief’s alleged negligence was in the paint removal, and paint removal clearly fell within the exception’s language of the care of the property. Id. at 197. … “the care of the personalty caused a dangerous condition to occur on the real property,” the actual holding in Grieff clearly stated that there was no immunity due to the negligent

Smith & Wesson Corp. v. City Of Gary, Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 2025

The City has failed to establish that the Reservation Statute is an unconstitutional special law. 7 In KS&E Sports, the Supreme Court observed: “One explanation [for the Immunity Statute] may be … The City failed to establish a separation of powers or open courts violation.

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.

The Board of Regents of the Texas A&M University System v. BE&K Building Group, LLC

Texas Court of Appeals, 15th District · Feb 12, 2026

PLH only had to establish that Chapter 114, not the contract, unambiguously waived immunity.” (internal citation omitted)). … TAMU contends that the Legislature did not “clearly and unequivocally consent[] to suits that lack a pre-suit notice.”

Whitestone v. Town of South Tucson

2 Ariz. App. 494 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Jan 25, 1966

While it is true that governmental immunity has been abrogated in Arizona, Stone v. … Clearly, however, something was intended by these words beyond simply delay after an action has been commenced. The decision in Helm is based upon failure to “diligently” prosecute.

McDowell v. County of Alameda

88 Cal. App. 3d 321 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 16, 1979

Respondents assert that subdivision (b) is qualified by the proviso of subdivision (c), which only deals with the negligent infliction of injuries to the patient while under confinement, rather than injuries inflicted on … The intent of this section is to insure that public entities provide equipment which meets minimum standards established by statute or by departmental regulations.

Simpson v. OP PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC

939 N.E.2d 1098 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 17, 2010

The party seeking immunity bears the burden of establishing the immunity. … If the facts allow multiple reasonable conclu *1104 sions as to an element triggering the immunity, then the governmental unit has failed to establish its immunity. Gary Cmty. Sch. Corp. v.

Johnson-McIntosh v. City of Detroit

261 Mich. App. 801 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 7, 2004

not include sidewalks, trailways, crosswalks, or any other installation outside of the improved portion of the highway designed for vehicular travel.[ [12] ] *835 A municipality's duty with regard to county highways is established … the one-way street, (c) a municipality fails to provide lighting at an *838 intersection heavily used by motorists and pedestrians resulting in a car-pedestrian accident, or (d) a new road is constructed intersecting an established

Williams, T. v. The GEO Group, Inc.

2022 Pa. Super. 148 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 24, 2022

Thus, they did not qualify as “experts retained or specially employed by another party in anticipation of litigation,” as specified under Pa.R.C.P. 4003.5(a)(3). … Additionally, the autopsy can help establish what institutional policies and protocols were and were not followed surrounding the [D]ecedent’s suicide.

Berz v. City of Evanston

2013 IL App (1st) 123763 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 19, 2013

Act (Tort Immunity Act) (745 ILCS 10/1-101 et seq. … from liability pursuant to section 3-102(a) of the Tort Immunity Act

Boswell v. May Centers, Inc.

669 S.W.2d 585 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Apr 3, 1984

Strangers may be permitted to show commonality of control and identity, but the corporation may not “pierce its own corporate veil” — a veil it has deliberately established. … The present case is clearly distinguishable. The duty of maintaining the parking lot was solely that of May Centers. The nature of the business conducted by each corporation was distinct and unrelated.

Peterson v. Midwest Security Insurance

238 Wis. 2d 677 · Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · Aug 17, 2000

The record on summary judgment contains deposition testimony that establishes that the tree stand was constructed by Shaw, was made of wood, and was "cinched in against [a] tree with a chain." … App. 1998), and concluded that the statute "delineates three categories of property whose owners may qualify for immunity: (1) real property; (2) buildings, structures and improvements thereon; and (3) waters of the state

Tex. Mun. League Intergovernmental Risk Pool v. City of Abilene

551 S.W.3d 337 · Court of Appeals of Texas · May 10, 2018

including requirements for serving notices or engaging in alternative dispute resolution proceedings before bringing a suit or an arbitration proceeding, that are stated in the contract subject to this subchapter or that are established … ("But Section 271.152, as qualified by this 'subject to' phrase also does not preclude other defenses or other contractual procedures ...." (emphasis added) ); see Romulus Grp., Inc. v.

City of North Richland Hills v. Home Town Urban Partners, Ltd. and Arcadia Land Partners 25, Ltd.

Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth) · Apr 28, 2011

When a governmental entity such as the City enters into a contract, it waives immunity from liability but does not waive immunity from suit unless the legislature has clearly and unambiguously waived the governmental entity … would have the effect of establishing a right to relief against the governmental entity for which governmental immunity has not been waived.

City of North Richland Hills v. Home Town Urban Partners, Ltd. and Arcadia Land Partners 25, Ltd.

Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth) · Apr 28, 2011

When a governmental entity such as the City enters into a contract, it waives immunity from liability but does not waive immunity from suit unless the legislature has clearly and unambiguously waived the governmental entity … sought would have the effect of establishing a right to relief against the governmental entity for which governmental immunity has not been waived.

Ogburn v. Toledo

2019 Ohio 163 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 18, 2019

If immunity applies, we then examine whether immunity has been abrogated by the exceptions set forth in R.C. 2744.02(B). Id. … . {¶ 17} Here, the city qualifies for immunity as a political subdivision under R.C. 2744.02(A).