Case law

Travis County v. Pelzel & Associates, Inc.

30 S.W.3d 662 · Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Nov 30, 2000

Hunt County, 249 S.W. 831, 835 (Tex.1923) (“disallowance of the claim by [the commissioners] court clearly gives the right to bring suit”). … The concurring opinion today complains that the presentment statute does not clearly waive a county’s immunity.

State v. Rodriguez

301 Or. App. 404 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 18, 2019

“[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor, absent full immunity, I don’t think that that’s a proper—excuse me, but I don’t—absent full immunity, I don’t think he can be compelled to testify. … First, in briefing, and upon clarification at oral argument, the state does not argue that the immu- nity offered here for “driving crimes” qualifies as “transac- tional immunity” as required under Article I, section 12,

Lockett v. City of Detroit Police Department

164 Mich. App. 466 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 16, 1987

The reasonableness of an official’s conduct should be measured by reference to clearly established laws, so that if a legal principle is not clearly established at a given time, the official could not reasonably be expected … In determining whether a body of law is clearly established, the court should not consider the very general body of law, but the more particularized and thus more relevant issue.

Phelps v. Chicago Transit Authority

224 Ill. App. 3d 229 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 19, 1991

The facts concerning the jury instruction on the CTA’s duty of care and the CTA’s claim of immunity will be detailed later in connection with our discussion of those issues. … A reviewing court will not reverse a cause on the basis of an improper jury instruction unless it is able to conclude that the instruction clearly misled the jury. (Nicholl v. Scaletta (1982), 104 Ill.

Krokey v. City of Cleveland

146 Ohio App. 3d 179 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 24, 2001

In fact, R.C. 2744.03(A), by its language, contemplates that a political subdivision is a proper party to a civil action, and sections (6) and (7) establish that an employee has no immunity where the acts or omissions were … Even though a judicial abrogation of common-law sovereign immunity can be appropriate, 8 it would be inappropriate for this court to find a waiver where the Ohio legislature clearly intended to grant immunity.

Zile v. State

710 So. 2d 729 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · May 20, 1998

Prosecution is not foreclosed because an immunized statement might have tangentially influenced a prosecutor's thought process, or because a "Chinese Wall" was not established. E.g. United States v. … the accused, without more, is sufficient to rebut the presumption of a prospective juror's impartiality would be to establish an impossible standard.

Edwards v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas

273 S.W.3d 461 · Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas) · Jan 26, 2009

, establish governmental immunity, pleadings alone can justify summary judgment and special exceptions are not required”). … The court also concluded the carrier, Trial-blazer, qualified for sovereign immunity "because it was acting under the direction of the federal government in performing duties delegated by HHS.”

Beck v. City of Durham

154 N.C. App. 221 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 3, 2002

The record in the instant case clearly indicates that plaintiff filed his amended complaint approximately four minutes after the hearing on defendants’ motion to dismiss began. … Plaintiff failed to set forth specific facts establishing that these claims were not barred by the statute of limitations. III.

Rahman v. Mayo Clinic

578 N.W.2d 802 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · May 26, 1998

Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 , 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2815 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (concluding because qualified immunity was an immunity from suit rather than mere defense to liability, it is appropriately resolved at summary judgment … Delaware Valley Transplant Program, 420 Pa.Super. 84 , 615 A.2d 1379, 1383 (1992) (quoting Nicoletta,and concluding undisputed facts of record establish good faith of hospital as matter of law).

Mazin v. Bureau of Professional & Occupational Affairs

950 A.2d 382 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 10, 2008

sovereign immunity. … Initially, we do not believe that he has established a clear legal right to relief. Dr.

Meadows v. City of Detroit

164 Mich. App. 418 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 16, 1987

We do not believe, however, that this case established the trial board’s entitlement to absolute immunity. … To the extent that the court’s decision to dismiss plaintiff’s contract claims was based on governmental immunity, that decision is clearly erroneous.

Peters v. Department of Corrections

215 Mich. App. 485 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 16, 1996

A motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) should be granted "only when the claim is so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could possibly justify a right of recovery.” … We agree with defendant that the element of control required by Hadfield cannot be established under the facts of this case.

Management Ass'n of Illinois, Inc. v. Board of Regents of Northern Illinois University

248 Ill. App. 3d 599 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 18, 1993

Clearly, mere tortious conduct, without further delineation, cannot qualify as unlawful so as to trigger the presumption in Allphin. … Negligence claims are clearly within the Act.

Gerety & Antkowiak v. State

249 Md. App. 484 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 24, 2021

To qualify for immunity under that subsection, a defendant must satisfy three elements. … The Fiscal and Policy Note for the 2015 amendments confirms this intention: [The amendment] establishes that immunity applies to situations involving a person who, in good faith provides

State, Department of Transportation v. Barraza

157 S.W.3d 922 · Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso) · Feb 24, 2005

Sovereign Immunity and the Texas Tort Claims Act TxDOT, as a state agency, is immune from suit unless that immunity is waived. Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. City of Floresville Elec. … We also agree that maintenance is clearly distinguishable from design in that maintenance refers to the preservation of existing conditions.

Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority v. David Garza and Diane Garza

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Oct 10, 2019

In particular, CCRMA argued that the Garzas did not establish a valid inverse condemnation or breach of contract claim; therefore, CCRMA’s governmental immunity remained intact. … BREACH OF CONTRACT By its second issue, CCRMA argues that the Garzas’ pleadings do not establish the statutory waiver of immunity for breach-of-contract actions found in § 271.152 of the Texas Local Government Code

Bounauito v. William Floyd School District

203 A.D.2d 225 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 4, 1994

In surreply, the plaintiffs established that the Town had received a complaint of a missing stop sign at the intersection in 1985, and that the Town ceased its investigation of the complaint when it determined that no stop … While such a governmental function is entitled to qualified immunity, a municipality may be liable where it is demonstrated that its traffic control plan was based on inadequate study or lacked a reasonable basis (see, Alexander

WFG Natl. Title Ins. Co. v. Meehan

107 N.E.3d 60 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 8, 2018

The parties also agree that the provisions of R.C. 3905.211 as to qualified immunity is applicable to appellees in the present instance. … The sole dispute is whether Meehan complied with the mandates of R.C. 3905.211(B) to defeat the qualified privilege at the pleading stage. {¶12} Pursuant to R.C. 3905.211(B) in an action where qualified immunity

Donna Zink, et ux v. City of Mesa

Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 30, 2024

However, we conclude that the right to video record a public meeting was not clearly established in 2003 and therefore Mayor Ross is entitled to qualified immunity. … it was clearly established in 2003.

Lacey v. Village of Palantine

Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 4, 2008

The court determined that the limited immunity in section 305 of the Domestic Violence Act clearly works in concert with the requirements in section 304: "section 304 creates duties; section 305 limits civil liability … Defendants had the burden of proof in establishing their immunity. Van Meter, 207 Ill. 2d at 370. They failed to do so.