Case law

Amylou R. v. County of Riverside

28 Cal. App. 4th 1205 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 3, 1994

Thus, “[t]o establish liability of a public entity for the acts of its employee, the employee must have been acting within the ‘scope of employment.’ ” (Cal. … To the contrary, by specifying that the employee is immune “even if he acts maliciously,” the section clearly extends to proceedings which were not initiated out of a malicious intent, and thus would not constitute malicious

Weiner v. Hts. Med. Bldg., L.L.C.

2025 Ohio 2534 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 17, 2025

City’s answer, filed by its director of law, included an affirmative defense alleging it “is entitled to immunity, including statutory, absolute, or qualified immunity, as well as immunity from punitive damages, including … The Windsor Court merely rejected any contention that this court had jurisdiction over issues clearly unrelated to the benefit of an alleged immunity. In Hale v.

Wendell H. Taylor v. Lubbock Regional MHMR & JI Texas Risk Management and Texas Department of Insurance Division of Workers' Compensation

Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo) · Jan 8, 2013

In sum, Taylor does not point us to, and we do not find, a statute that clearly and unambiguously waives immunity from suit for damages for the tort claims Taylor alleges against MHMR, the Risk Management Fund, and the … --Texarkana 1992, no writ) (holding evidence did not clearly establish private insurance adjuster handling workers’ compensation claims for Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool was agent of risk pool entitled

Galveston County v. Victoria Leach and Stacie Habetz

Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · Dec 9, 2021

Thus, we concluded that the city retained its immunity. … The County was required to establish “only that a reasonably prudent officer, under similar circumstances, might have reached the same decision.” Id.

David Pflugh v. Indianapolis Historic Preservation Commission sitting as the Indianapolis Historic Preservation Commission and as the Board of Zoning Appeals Division of Marion County, Indiana

108 N.E.3d 904 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 1, 2018

[13] The trial court found that Pflugh failed to establish that he was particularly harmed, and it is well-settled that we will not set aside a trial court’s findings unless they are clearly erroneous … Pflugh does not claim, much less establish, that the trial court’s findings are clearly erroneous.

Commonwealth v. Rodriguez

2013 Pa. Super. 302 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 22, 2013

Therefore, to qualify for exemption, Appellant’s vehicle must be a “government vehicle.” See 75 Pa.C.S. § 4524(e)(2)(i). … See Brief for Appellant 1-11; see also N.T. at 44-45 (Appellant’s attorney stating that Appellant’s only defense is his alleged immunity).

Fullilove v. US Casualty Company of New York

129 So. 2d 816 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Apr 12, 1961

This act was adopted after final judgment had been rendered in the lower court; but, the case having been as fully tried below as if plaintiff had had authority to stand in judgment, and she being the appellant, and now qualified … This choice of words clearly indicates the purpose to require new suits in only those cases where the judgments of dismissal were not subject to correction, and had attained the status of res judicata.

Bosch v. Hain

184 N.J. Super. 204 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 11, 1982

Thus, although N.J.S.A. 59:2-2 appears to establish sweeping vicarious liability for the acts of public employees, such general liability is, of course, subject to and circumscribed by the express immunity provisions of the … There is no indication in either of these sections that immunity applies only to discretionary acts. The language of N.J.S.A. 59:2-6 expressly provides two clearly stated exceptions to the immunity granted.

Kabat v. Department of Transportation

California Court of Appeal · Dec 19, 2024

for injuries caused by qualifying preapproved plans or designs; and (3) section 830.8, which gives public entities limited signage immunity for injuries caused by the failure to provide certain traffic signals, signs, markings … First, Caltrans met its initial burden of establishing the defense of design immunity (§ 830.6), but Plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of material fact in opposition.

Long v. Friesland

178 Ill. App. 3d 42 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 20, 1988

expert witnesses who are qualified to define a given standard. … Clearly, the cutting of brush alongside township roads is a ministerial act, as is maintaining the roadway at a width of 16 feet.

Crowe v. John W. Harton Memorial Hospital

579 S.W.2d 888 · Court of Appeals of Tennessee · Jan 5, 1979

The distinction between the two types of activity has never been clearly enunciated by the courts of this State. As this Court succinctly opined in Williams v. … The traditional rationale for establishing a special category of immunity for municipalities exercising their governmental functions include that the city does not profit from the exercise of its governmental functions, Howard

Reynolds v. State Board for Community Colleges & Occupational Education

20 Brief Times Rptr. 750 · Colorado Court of Appeals · May 2, 1996

Plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in ruling that she was required to prove that the printing press was a fixture in order to establish a waiver of immunity under the GIA. … unless it is clearly erroneous.

Leibig v. SOMERVILLE SENIOR HOUSING

326 N.J. Super. 102 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 24, 1999

To establish immunity under N.J.S.A. 59:4-6, it is also necessary to show that the design feature in question was contained in the construction plans, those plans were approved by the public entity, and the construction was … If all other elements of plan-or-design immunity had been present, would defendant have qualified for derivative immunity as a public contractor?

Dole Citrus v. State of California

60 Cal. App. 4th 486 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 26, 1997

Royster (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 289, 306 [ 195 Cal.Rptr. 73 ]: “In order for the state to establish design immunity as a defense, the state must show (1) A causal relationship between the plan and the accident; (2) discretionary … In summary, it is clear that the state presented sufficient evidence to establish the initial applicability of its design immunity defense, and Dole Citrus does not now contend otherwise. (Cameron v.

Ex parte Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Jemmstone Alabama, LLC v. Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission) (Montgomery Circuit Court: CV-23-901800).

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · Aug 23, 2024

from suit due to State or sovereign immunity. … immunity from a suit seeking injunctive relief.

Tex. Dep't of Aging & Disability Servs. v. Lagunas

546 S.W.3d 239 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Feb 24, 2017

PLEAS TO THE JURISDICTION IN TCHRA CLAIMS State agencies such as DADS are protected by sovereign immunity other than for claims for which immunity has been waived by the legislature. Tex. Parks & Wildlife Dep't v. … "In order to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination under the TCHRA in a non-selection or failure to hire case, McClaren must show that: (1) he was in the protected class; (2) he was qualified for the position

Allen v. City of Midlothian

927 S.W.2d 316 · Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco) · Aug 7, 1996

attached to this motion clearly demonstrates that a fact question exists as to when the cause of action as to Plaintiff accrued. … In the absence of a waiver of immunity elsewhere, sovereign immunity is generally waived only to the extent provided in the Texas Tort Claims Act. University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston v.

State of Texas v. Bradley A. McAllister

Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo) · Oct 29, 2004

(footnote: 1) Presenting two issues, TxDOT contends (1) the Texas Tort Claims Act (footnote: 2) does not clearly and unambiguously waive its sovereign immunity for McAllister’s claim. … The evidence established that McAllister was not speeding.

Chippenham & Johnston-Willis v. Va. Birth-Related

Court of Appeals of Virginia · Jan 13, 2004

First, it is a non sequitur to assert that a disability — as that term is specifically defined and qualified in the statute — always precedes death or is subsumed by it. … It includes multiple provisions defining its terms, describing its scope, and qualifying its reach.

Grimm Construction Co. v. Denver Board of Water Commissioners

16 Brief Times Rptr. 1062 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Jun 18, 1992

Therefore, it argued that the City was immune from any liability. … Summary judgment is a drastic remedy and should be granted only upon a clear showing that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that all legal prerequisites are clearly established.