Case law

CGE Ford Heights, L.L.C. v. Miller

306 Ill. App. 3d 431 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 4, 1999

Plaintiffs, which burn tires, no longer qualify as QSWEFs under the amendment and are not entitled to the retail rate. … We will not render advisory opinions or decide cases merely to establish precedent. Berlin, 179 Ill. 2d at 8 .

Bester v. Essex Crane Rental Corp.

422 Pa. Super. 178 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 8, 1993

It tests the legal sufficiency of the challenged complaint and will be sustained only in cases where the pleader has clearly failed to state a claim for which relief may be granted. Mudd v. … Payne, 217 Pa. 252 , 66 A. 553 (1907) that words of general import cannot establish an agreement to indemnify. Ruzzi held the drafters of the indemnification agreement to the level of specificity established in Peny.

CRAIG HARRISON & another v. MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY.

101 Mass. App. Ct. 659 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Sep 13, 2022

it clearly knew how to do so. … The Jancey court concluded that "[m]unicipal employees can clearly sue their employer under the provisions of MEPA [the Massachusetts Equal Pay Act, G.

State v. Gamberella

633 So. 2d 595 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Dec 29, 1993

HIV is the virus responsible for causing acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). … To establish defendant's guilt, the state was required to prove that defendant intentionally exposed the victim to the acquired immune deficiency syndrome virus through sexual contact without the victim's knowing and lawful

Nieder v. Gacy

121 Ill. App. 3d 854 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 1, 1984

Plaintiff contends, however, that these immunity provisions must be read in conjunction with section 2 — 202 of the act which she argues limits the extent of the immunity granted in the police immunity provisions. … The decedent’s death clearly is too remote a consequence of the parole board’s actions to conclude that the board’s actions fall within this jurisdictional base. (Cf. Martinez v. California (1979), 444 U.S. 277 , 62 L.

Winters v. City of Jersey

120 N.J. Super. 129 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 28, 1972

When the Legislature has intended that a governmental body should be immune, it has clearly and expressly said so. *147 Cf. N. J. S. … for has not been clearly granted by the Legislature.

Gerkin v. Santa Clara Valley Water District

95 Cal. App. 3d 1022 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 17, 1979

As originally enacted in 1963, section 846 granted property owners qualified immunity from liability for injuries connected with “taking of fish and game, camping, water sports, hiking or sightseeing.” … While the plaintiff’s subjective intent will not be controlling, it is relevant to show purpose. *1028 The deposition testimony submitted by respondents in support of their motion establishes that appellant was either walking

Underwood v. University of Kentucky

390 So. 2d 433 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Nov 18, 1980

The record does not clearly reflect which provision of the Florida long-arm statute the plaintiff sought to employ in bringing the defendants within the jurisdiction of the court. … The author Lyon does not, of course, share in this immunity.

Nadrowski v. Cleveland

2022 Ohio 3232 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 15, 2022

R.C. 2744.02(A)(1) establishes a general grant of sovereign immunity, providing that a political subdivision is not liable for damages for injury, death, or loss to person or property incurred in connection with … The record demonstrates that Nadrowski could not clearly identify where she fell or what caused her to fall.

Commonwealth v. Smith

201 Pa. Super. 511 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 12, 1963

The search and the seizure in the present case were clearly reasonable under the federal decisions. … Smith’s invitation was clearly a waiver of his right. Com. v. Gockley, 411 Pa. 437, 446 , 192 A. 2d 693 .

Johnson v. Woodland Hills School District

135 Pa. Commw. 43 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 29, 1990

Miladin, 123 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 405, 553 A.2d 535 (1989), that the real property exception to immunity 1 did not apply. … Summary judgment is only appropriate when, after examining the record in favor of the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant clearly establishes that he or she is entitled to judgment as

State ex rel. Missouri Highway & Transportation Commission v. Ryan

741 S.W.2d 828 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Nov 24, 1987

We have done so, however, where refusal to utilize the writ will compel a party to undergo a clearly unwarranted and useless litigation. See, e.g., State ex rel. O’Blennis v. Adolf, 691 S.W.2d 498, 500 (Mo.App.1985). … the negligent acts or omissions by public employees arising out of the operation of motor vehicles within the course of their employment; (2) Injuries caused by the condition of a public entity’s property if the plaintiff established

Clark Ex Rel. Estate of Clark v. South Carolina Department of Public Safety

353 S.C. 291 · Court of Appeals of South Carolina · Nov 12, 2002

a limitation upon liability or an exception to the waiver of immunity is upon the governmental entity asserting it as an affirmative defense.” 20 “To establish discretionary immunity, the governmental entity must prove that … A traffic officer's decision to pursue a vehicle ..., though discretionary in the sense that it involves the exercise of judgment and choice by the officer, is not one that qualifies its maker to immunity ...

Brenham Housing Authority v. Margaret Davies

Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · Jan 27, 2005

Had the legislature intended to qualify Section 101.022(a) to a payment for use of temporary duration, it could have done so. … Accordingly, we sustain BHA = s first issue, and find that Davies = s pleadings fail to establish that BHA = s immunity is waived with respect to Davies = s premises defect claim. [4] C.

City of San Antonio v. Butler

131 S.W.3d 170 · Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · Feb 25, 2004

“Powers of the City,” paragraph 1, “General Powers,” states, in pertinent part: The City may sue and be sued, plead and be impleaded in all courts, have a corporate existence, contract and be contracted with, ordain and establish … Furthermore, the City clearly retained all immunities granted by the laws of Texas, which includes the limitation on tort liability and corresponding immunity from suit set out in the TTCA.

Henshilwood v. Hendricks County

653 N.E.2d 1062 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 31, 1995

Use of the ditch to collect water was its intended use, and clearly foreseeable and known to the County. The County cannot claim immunity under this clause. … No. 17A03-9412-CR-443 (application of Mullin test established private duty owed by County as facts showed injured party relied on County’s promise to dispatch ambulance).

Transformative Learning System D/B/A Transformative Charter Academy v. Texas Education Agency and Michael Williams in His Official Capacity as the Commissioner of Education

572 S.W.3d 281 · Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Dec 28, 2018

To establish the district court’s jurisdiction over a controversy, a plaintiff suing the State must establish a waiver of sovereign immunity. Texas Nat. Res. Conservation Comm’n v. … However, “if a plaintiff ‘cannot 14 establish a viable takings claim’ against a governmental entity, the claim would implicate immunity and potentially be barred by it.

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.

Doyle v. Clauss

190 A.D. 838 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 3, 1920

Qualified privilege does not afford absolute immunity. It excludes the presumption of malice, (Andrews v. Gardiner, supra.) In Capital & Counties Bank v. Henty & Sons (L. R. 7 App. … If the plaintiff establishes malice, then, despite the qualified privilege, damages may be recovered, and even punitive damages as well. (Crane v. Bennett, 177 N. Y. 106, 116 .)

State v. Jones

171 Mo. 401 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jan 9, 1903

that his confession was obtained by duress or promise of immunity the confession must be excluded. … The confession established defendant’s guilt beyond all question and was corroborated.