Case law

Wilson v. City of Jersey City

415 N.J. Super. 138 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 4, 2010

However, we find that Burd clearly did not engage in a blind transfer. … Plaintiffs contend that the Jersey City defendants do not qualify for Title 52 immunity because Jersey City was not acting as a PSAP.

Pence v. Kelly

2026 IL App (4th) 250468-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 30, 2026

of a “clearly established” right. … qualified immunity.”

Levi v. Kratovac

35 A.D.3d 548 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 12, 2006

The defendants City of New York and City of New York Department of Transportation (hereinafter together the City) established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. … Because these improvements were made in accordance with a reasonable traffic plan made after an adequate study, the City is entitled to qualified immunity for liability arising out of these decisions (see Affleck v Buckley

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

City of Celina v. Blair

171 S.W.3d 608 · Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas) · Sep 22, 2005

of tangible real property, so that sovereign immunity is waived under the Texas Tort Claims Act. … evidence showed the park normally inspected and maintained its trees; tree limbs are only pruned or trimmed if dead; the tree limb that fell on plaintiff was living, fell from fifty feet above the campsite, and was not clearly

White v. Lubbock

30 S.W.2d 722 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jul 24, 1930

that of the Democratic Party, has the power to determine who shall comprise its membership, and in this instance the State Committee of the latter having excluded the relator from membership in it, no right, privilege, or immunity … Relator’s position here, therefore, is unlike that of the applicant for so drastic a writ as mandamus in every case he cites as relying on, there being in each of them establishment of the basic facts depended on.

The State v. Pickens

330 Ga. App. 862 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Mar 3, 2015

Thus, to be entitled to immunity from prosecution under OCGA § 20-2-1001, a defendant must establish three things: (1) she is an educator; (2) the acts or omissions in questions were related to or resulting from disciplining … The trial court held a three-day evidentiary hearing during which Pickens called five witnesses and the State called six.3 One of the State’s witnesses was qualified as an expert in behavior management strategies for students

McLane Co., Inc. v. Strayhorn

148 S.W.3d 644 · Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Oct 14, 2004

We now turn to McLane’s pleadings to determine whether it established jurisdiction. … Waiver of Immunity Based on the Protest Statutes McLane also sought to establish jurisdiction under the protest statutes, sections 112.051 and 112.101 of the tax code.

State v. Ruegge

21 Neb. Ct. App. 249 · Nebraska Court of Appeals · Sep 10, 2013

App. 249 establish that Vande Mheen had actually obtained the stolen generator/welder from someone other than Ruegge. … The motion was clearly untimely, and as such, we do not review Ruegge’s assertions about the motion for a mistrial on appeal.

Matter of Stepanek

924 P.2d 1142 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Oct 15, 1996

To determine who is entitled to absolute immunity, we examine whether the action is advocatory and entitles the actor to absolute immunity, or if it is investigatory, and only provides qualified immunity. Higgs v. … alternative of granting only qualified immunity would not serve the broader public interest.

Garrison v. State

992 S.W.2d 898 · Missouri Court of Appeals · May 4, 1999

We conclude the finding of the motion court was not clearly erroneous. State v. … Movant’s fourth claim of error argues the judge who heard the motion, also the trial judge, is not qualified to decide one of the issues.

Lewis v. Jasper County Community Unit School District No. 1

258 Ill. App. 3d 419 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 4, 1994

Immunity Act (the Tort Immunity Act) (Ill. … Clearly, in light of the definitions provided by the legislature, section 3 — 106 immunizes the School District from injuries occurring on school property used for recreational purposes, absent willful or wanton conduct by

Partridge v. State of New York

2019 NY Slip Op 3715 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 9, 2019

We now turn to defendant's assertions regarding the remaining elements of claimant's cause of action — that claimant failed to establish that defendant acted in a grossly irresponsible manner and that defendant is immune … Likewise, we do not find defendant immune from liability due to qualified privilege.

VALLEY ADVOCATES v. City of Fresno

72 Cal. Rptr. 3d 690 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 15, 2008

His work as an architect on the proposed project established that he was familiar with the Flats. … In contrast, the parties in this case clearly dispute whether the fair argument standard should apply.

Stacy & Witbeck, Inc. v. City & County of San Francisco

47 Cal. App. 4th 1 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 2, 1996

Amici curiae cite no authority for such proposition, nor do they support the request with sufficient foundation to establish the credibility of the reports such that we could rely on them. 10 Second, we do not find these … The identity and qualifications of the author are not clearly spelled out, the purpose for which they were prepared is not clearly delineated nor is there any statement concerning the extent, if any, of the legislators’ reliance

Rand v. City of New Orleans

2012 La.App. 4 Cir. 0348 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Dec 13, 2012

Then, section 154-1702(d) clearly demonstrates that the hearing officer is also the- adjudicator of the hearings because he assesses liability. … A hearing examiner may be selected from a list of qualified candidates who have satisfied the standards to be established by a duly constituted committee of parish attorneys.

State v. Toomey

38 Wash. App. 831 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 5, 1984

Immunity would have jeopardized his conviction, for if he were successful in obtaining a reversal, he could not be tried again. State v. Runions, 100 Wn.2d 52 , 665 P.2d 1358 (1983). … It is debatable whether Toomey's claim qualifies, but we nevertheless elect to consider it. 6 In Michael M. v.

Bonnette v. Tunica-Biloxi Indians

873 So. 2d 1 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Mar 24, 2004

In finding that the Tribe did not waive its sovereign immunity in the Tribal-State compact, the trial court concluded: These specific clauses ... clearly confirm to this Court that the Tribe has not waived sovereign immunity … While there is some support for a waiver of immunity by the Tribe in the Tribal-State Compact, that support is too ambiguous. A waiver of immunity must be clearly expressed and unequivocal. Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v.

CITRUS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC. D/B/A CITRUS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL v. MARLA IANNELLI AND TONY GAINEY

District Court of Appeal of Florida · Nov 9, 2023

The “Liability protections” portion of the PREP Act clearly establishes immunity “from suit and liability,” thereby making certiorari review appropriate in this type of case; rather than dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction … ’s determination of whether immunity from suit was established.

Aversano v. PALISADES INTERSTATE

363 N.J. Super. 266 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 1, 2003

When liability is found, public entities and public employees are entitled to any immunity found in the TCA as well as any immunity established by the common law. Id. at 355-56 , 627 A.2d at 1094-95 . … subject to any immunity previously established by common law."