Case law

Keagan Farris v. John H McKaig III

324 Mich. App. 349 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 17, 2018

Based on the duties of an LGAL, it is clearly a guardian; after an LGAL is appointed in child protective proceedings, it has the statutory authority and duty to care for the child by advocating for the child’s best interests … Despite the fact that MCL 712A.13a differentiates between a GAL and an LGAL, MCL 712A.13a(1) begins with the qualifier, “As used in this section and sections 2, 6b, 13b, 17c, 17d, 18f, 19, 19a, 19b, and 19c of this chapter

Com. v. Lehman, R.

231 A.3d 877 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 6, 2020

-5- J-A29018-19 The burden of proof under the Drug Overdose Response Immunity Act is not on the Commonwealth; rather, the defendant must establish that he is entitled to … if the person can establish the following . . .”).

Vey v. State

35 Ohio App. 324 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 21, 1929

The additional prerequisite of the certificate of a reputable physician is, under the wording of the statute, applicable only to eases where, upon arraignment, the defendant seeks immunity from pleading to the indictment … It was clearly the duty of counsel for the accused, if he was to avail himself of the court’s omission to call the experts to testify at the trial, to have called the court’s attention to that subject, which, as far as the

Wilson Et Vir v. Miladin

123 Pa. Commw. 405 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 10, 1989

. §8501, and was, therefore, entitled to governmental immunity. 1 The court also concluded that the real property exception to immunity 2 did not apply. Thus, it held that Rochester was not liable. … Summary judgment is appropriate only when, examining the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant clearly establishes that he or she is entitled

State v. Scott

420 S.C. 108 · Court of Appeals of South Carolina · May 3, 2017

[[Image here]] I hereby conclude that the Defendant is entitled to the grant of immunity under the Act because he and his family were clearly under attack and that they had every reason to believe that the attack would have … We agree with the concurrence that a defendant must establish the elements of self-defense in order to prevail on a claim for immunity.

Robinson v. City of Raytown

606 S.W.2d 460 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Oct 1, 1980

Unfortunately, the parties on appeal, by positing defendant city’s accountability solely in terms of the absence or existence of “qualified immunity” 3 , have inadvertently obscured certain threshold considerations inextricably … City of Independence, Missouri, 445 U.S. 622 , 100 S.Ct. 1398 , 63 L.Ed.2d 673 (1980), holding that municipalities have no immunity, qualified or otherwise, in actions cognizable under § 1983. 4 .

Buse v. Trustees of the Luce Township Regional Sewer District

953 N.E.2d 519 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 9, 2011

Challengers must establish that the trial court’s findings are clearly erroneous. Findings are clearly erroneous when a review of the record leaves us firmly convinced a mistake has been made. … Our supreme court disagreed that the landowners’ claims qualified as a public lawsuit.

Cornell Narberth, LLC v. Borough of Narberth

167 A.3d 228 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 14, 2017

The trial court reasoned that the letter “is barely a scintilla of evidence and would clearly not survive trial on the merits.” Id. … To establish a contract, all essential elements must exist, including consideration.

Texas Ass'n of School Boards Risk Management Fund v. Benavides Independent School District

221 S.W.3d 732 · Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · Jan 31, 2007

While it is well established that sovereign immunity protects the federal government from state suits and vice versa, this immunity stems from the basic precept of federalism that the federal and several state governments … According to the Fund, the Legislature has not clearly and unambiguously waived immunity from suit with respect to the School District’s contract claims.

Texas General Land Office v. Crystal Clear Water Supply Corp.

449 S.W.3d 130 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Aug 22, 2014

Crystal Clear asserts that the tracts comprising the 151 acres are clearly receiving water service and that if that acreage and the Decertified Property were treated as a single tract, none of the GLO’s property would qualify … If it was not, then the property qualified for expedited decertifi-cation under section 13.254(a-5).

Scatchell v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners for Melrose Park

464 Ill. Dec. 409 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 30, 2022

In fact, many of Scatchell’s individual violations alone would have been enough to establish cause supporting his termination. … He now argues the Board should have ruled on his motion when he made it, because the Department had not established a prima facie case against him.

Ronald S. v. County of San Diego

16 Cal. App. 4th 887 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 17, 1993

These activities, unlike those possibly within the scope of the Elton pleading, clearly fall within the ambit of discretionary action. … The foreseeability of damage by the omission, through negligent investigation, to uncover facts which would lead to the conclusion that adoptive parents are not qualified, is much more easily identified.

Durham v. Bowie County

135 S.W.3d 294 · Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana) · Apr 21, 2004

Waiving general immunity from tort liability, Tex. Civ. Piiac. & Rem. … Once a sign is installed, the Manual qualifies as having the force of law within the meaning of Section 101.055(2). 2.

Kaider v. Hamos

975 N.E.2d 667 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 20, 2012

It categorizes all aliens as ‘qualified’ or not ‘qualified’ and then denies public benefits based on that categorization.” League of United Latin American Citizens v. Wilson, 997 F. … The General Assembly was therefore clearly cognizant that the PRA imposed requirements on the distribution of public benefits in Illinois.

WISE REGIONAL HEALTH SYSTEMS v. Brittain

268 S.W.3d 799 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Sep 25, 2008

These pleadings are not sufficiently specific, standing alone, to establish a waiver of sovereign immunity. See Tex. Dept. of Criminal Justice v. … Brittain’s supplement to her third amended petition clearly was an attempt to re-plead to cure the jurisdictional defects raised by the plea to the jurisdiction.

Whiteley v. Philip Morris, Inc.

11 Cal. Rptr. 3d 807 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 29, 2004

The parties and the court below described Cipollone as presenting a continuum ranging from claims clearly preempted by the Act at one end and claims clearly not preempted at the other. … “Generally, the burden falls on the plaintiff to establish causation. [Citation.] ...

Clipse v. Gillis

20 Wash. App. 691 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 17, 1978

Counsel has not called to our attention, nor do we find from our own examination of the record, any facts which would tend to establish the illegality of the warrants, or their illegal execution. … If these preliminary questions can be clearly and unequivocally answered in the affirmative, then the challenged act, omission, or decision can, with a reasonable degree of assurance, be classified as a discretionary governmental

Stephen Hartman v. the Estate of Joe Alford

Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont) · Sep 19, 2019

“[T]he alternative of qualifying a prosecutor’s immunity would disserve the broader public interest. … Qualified immunity applies to acts performed by a prosecutor when a prosecutor “‘functions as an administrator rather than as an officer of the court’ he is entitled only to qualified immunity.”

in Re: Stephen Clay Johnston

Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana) · Sep 5, 2002

Governmental Immunity Does Not Bar this Suit It is well established in Texas that sovereign or governmental immunity protects governmental entities from lawsuits for damages, unless consent is given. See Tex. … VW argues that, in light of these later developments, the language granting school districts the authority to "sue and be sued" does not clearly and unambiguously effect a waiver of sovereign immunity.

Dominique Cunningham v. Teneshia Hudspeth

Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · May 14, 2026

jurisdiction over the lawsuit. 2 Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 76a, which governs the sealing of court records, only allows sealing upon a showing of a “specific, serious and substantial interest” that “clearly … Cunningham did not explain how any of the cited sections conferred subject matter jurisdiction on the court, nor did she provide any caselaw or other relevant authority establishing that governmental immunity had been waived