Case law

Christopherson v. City of Albert Lea

623 N.W.2d 272 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Mar 13, 2001

Minn.Stat. §§ 466.04 (establishing maximum limits of liability), 466.06 (procuring liability insurance waives a municipality’s liability only to the extent of coverage). … Such a decision was clearly policy-making, not operational, in nature because it involved balancing financial and policy considerations.

Frank v. Hawaii Planing Mill Foundation

88 Haw. 465 · Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · Jul 2, 1998

The supreme court then turned its attention to whether Huish, having paid a fee to Adia that included workers’ compensation coverage for Ghersi, had provided workers’ compensation benefits to Ghersi so as to qualify for immunity … We turn then to an examination of the facts in this case to determine whether HPM Defendants qualified as Frank’s exclusive employer for workers’ compensation purposes so as to be entitled to immunity from a negligence action

Rankin v. Harding

191 A.D.2d 926 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 18, 1993

This immunity does not apply "[f]or wilful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure or activity” (68 Pa Cons Stat § 477-6 [1]). … Although "tubing” is not specifically listed in the Pennsylvania recreational use statute, we conclude that it qualifies as an outdoor winter recreational use within the meaning of the statute (see, Commonwealth of Pa.

the El Paso Education Initiative, Inc., D/B/A Burnham Wood Charter School v. Amex Properties, LLC

564 S.W.3d 228 · Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso) · Oct 31, 2018

Under a plain reading of Section 271.152, three elements must be established to waive the government’s immunity from suit: (1) the party against whom the waiver is asserted must be a “local governmental entity” under Section … To qualify as a contract subject to Section 271.152’s waiver of immunity, a contract must: (1) be in writing, (2) state the essential terms of the agreement, (3) provide for goods or services, (4) to the local governmental

People v. Anderson

232 Cal. App. 4th 1259 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 9, 2015

He assumed he would reimburse Anderson for costs when the co-op was established. … “To establish the collective/cooperative defense, a defendant must show: “One: Qualified patients have associated within the State of California in order, collectively or cooperatively, to cultivate

T&A Amusements, LLC v. McCrory

251 N.C. App. 904 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 7, 2017

T&A is a distributor for Crazie Overstock and, as such, is responsible for recruiting persons to operate retail establishments and for helping to set up and service those establishments. … App. 119, 125, 759 S.E.2d 304, 309 (“Sovereign immunity is not merely a defense to a cause of action; it is a bar to actions that requires a plaintiff to establish a waiver of immunity.”

Smith v. Walker

138 N.J. Super. 187 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 5, 1975

Their reliability as an indicator of the truth has been fully established. … Ryan, supra , qualifies. Defendant's attorney will submit an order, consented to as to form or on five days notice, providing for: 1.

Mobile Diagnostic Imaging, Inc. v. Racheal L. Hooten f/k/a Racheal L. Jones

889 N.W.2d 27 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Dec 19, 2016

Stat. § 148.10, subd. 1(a) (2014), sets forth the grounds for revoking, suspending, limiting, restricting, qualifying, or refusing to grant a license to practice chiropractic, and applies to licensed chiropractors or persons … enjoys immunity for that conduct.

Texas Southmost College v. Linda Hernandez

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Jan 26, 2023

Governmental entities in Texas generally enjoy immunity from suit unless the Legislature has expressly waived their immunity by statute. Tex. Nat. Res. Conservation Comm’n v. … 15 evidence that she was (1) at least forty years old, (2) qualified for her position, (3) terminated by TSC, (4) and replaced by someone significantly younger.

Lambert v. Town of Sylva

259 N.C. App. 294 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 1, 2018

App. 680, 684-85, 446 S.E.2d 126, 129 (1994) (“Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded by the defendant. … This is not the law as established by the United States Supreme Court.

Clark v. Jenkins

248 S.W.3d 418 · Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo) · Apr 3, 2008

-Amarillo 1996, writ denied). 16 *432 Clearly, all communications to public officials are not absolutely privileged. Hurlbut, 749 S.W.2d at 768 . … Initial communications “to a public officer ... who is authorized or privileged to take action” are subject to only a qualified privilege, not absolute immunity. Id.

McClintock v. West

219 Cal. App. 4th 540 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 9, 2013

Mueller (6th Cir. 1984) 732 F.2d 1456, 1458 [guardian ad litem “must act in the best interests of the [person] he represents [and s]uch a position clearly places him squarely within the judicial process”].) … Why would any qualified person ever accept appointment as a guardian ad litem when his or her decisions could be subject to such post hoc second guessing?

Andrianova v. Indiana Family & Social Services Administration

799 N.E.2d 5 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 20, 2003

Those exceptions are enumerated in the Interim Guideline Regulations, and five of them are clearly inapplicable in this case. … In the latter case, the statute involved was one that Congress clearly intended to be construed liberally.

ADRIENNE YOUNG v. STEVE JOHNSON

Court of Appeals of Georgia · Jun 15, 2021

In her sole claim of error, Young argues that the trial court erred by ruling that she had not established a waiver of the City’s sovereign immunity because the City’s immunity is clearly and explicitly waived by OCGA § … case, and waiver of sovereign immunity must be established by the party seeking to benefit from that waiver[.]”)

Park v. Walsh

82 Cal. App. 379 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 16, 1927

and testament was duly admitted to probate in the superior court of California in and for the city and county of San Francisco, following which letters testamentary thereon were issued to respondent Walsh, who is now the qualified … App. 674 [ 113 Pac. 126, 130 ], It was held in the cases cited that under the facts shown a duty created by the laws of another state may be enforced by mandate; but it clearly appears from the following decisions of the

Lucero v. Salazar

117 N.M. 802 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · May 11, 1994

established, and the right is not absolute or unqualified."). … To establish who was a foreseeable plaintiff in situations where negligent infliction of emotional distress was alleged, Ramirez established the following criteria: 1.

Wolf v. Kajima International Inc.

621 N.E.2d 1128 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 29, 1993

Rogers is entitled to the immunity afforded by the Act. … The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and held (1) a general contractor qualifies for statutory employer immunity under the LHWCA, and (2) a general contractor is entitled to immunity from tort actions where it

Matter of Hotel and Restaurant Emp. and Bartend. International Union

203 N.J. Super. 297 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 11, 1985

Appellants contend that all individuals appointed to union positions were qualified for the job. … The authority of the Casino Control Commission to confer testimonial immunity upon a witness is established by N.J.S.A. 5:12-67, which provides in part: *336 If, in the course of any investigation or hearing conducted under

City of El Paso v. Hernandez

16 S.W.3d 409 · Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso) · Mar 16, 2000

Where the defendant is the movant, it must conclusively establish each essential element of an affirmative defense, such as sovereign immunity. Camacho v. … Similarly, Section 101.062 does not clearly and unambiguously waive the *416 sovereign immunity of a governmental unit.

Sedona Private Property Owners Ass'n v. City of Sedona

192 Ariz. 126 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · May 19, 1998

electors. ¶7 In this context, “qualified electors” means those who are registered to vote, not just those who actually voted. … If section 1(6) applies to local initiatives, the ordinance was not immune from repeal because it did not pass by a majority of those registered to vote. ¶ 8 We must decide whether section 1(6) applies to local elections.