Case law

Nardo v. City of Philadelphia

988 A.2d 740 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 8, 2010

Although Section 8542 states that there is an exception to immunity for negligence with regard to the care, custody or control of real property in the *746 possession of the local agency, it clearly states that liability … Here, although the contractor was never identified, City and Commission employees established that an unknown independent contractor did construct the alleged defective garden.

Tompkins Ex Rel. Newby v. Carlsbad Irrigation District

96 N.M. 368 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Jun 16, 1981

The Legislature having established CID as a “body politic,” the issue is whether a body politic is a political subdivision and, thus, a local public body under the Tort Claims Act. … Plaintiff’s contention is: “Nowhere does the section use the term irrigation district and ... if this were read into the bill, it would clearly be violative of Art. IV, § 16” of the Constitution of New Mexico.

Malcolm v. City of East Detroit

180 Mich. App. 633 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 17, 1989

Since no contrary definition or intent is clearly manifested in §20737, "[a]ll persons” must, by express statutory definition and construction, include governmental units. … The city also argues that, even should the ems statute provide an exception to governmental immunity, the evidence was insufficient to establish wilful or wanton misconduct on the part of the city or that its conduct was

Palm Beach County Sheriff v. State

854 So. 2d 278 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Sep 17, 2003

Mandamus may not be used to establish the existence of such a right, but only to enforce a right already clearly and certainly established in the law. Fla. League of Cities v. … The Sheriff cites no statute that clearly authorizes the type of relief he seeks.

Todaro v. City of Houston

135 S.W.3d 287 · Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · Apr 20, 2004

When determining whether the Legislature has clearly and unambiguously waived immunity from suit, we generally resolve any ambiguity in favor of retaining immunity. Id. at 697 . … City of Houston, “Clearly [section] 101.061 intended to provide for abolishment of governmental immunity without causing havoc.” 839 S.W.2d 95, 99 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1992, writ denied).

McCracken v. Redford Township

176 Mich. App. 365 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 4, 1989

The panel analyzed each of the opinions of the concurring justices and concluded: While the three-justice plurality led by Justice Brickley clearly holds that there is no intentional nuisance exception to governmental immunity … Nevertheless, this does not establish the requisite intent.

Wilkerson v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.

151 N.C. App. 332 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 16, 2002

It is only when an individual pleads qualified immunity or public officer immunity that the distinction between discretionary and ministerial acts is important. … This testimony clearly supports the finding that the City did not waive its immunity regarding the improvement project.

McKinney v. City of Philadelphia

123 Pa. Commw. 144 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 26, 1989

Questions presented are essentially whether governmental immunity under the Judicial Code, 42 Pa. C. … The instant record clearly demonstrates that the order from which the City appealed is interlocutory in nature and that the City has failed to otherwise establish its appealability.

Weiss v. New Jersey Transit

245 N.J. Super. 265 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 15, 1991

The first is immune from tort liability. … Clearly, as we held in McGowan v.

Schabel v. DEER VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL

186 Ariz. 161 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Jul 9, 1996

Accordingly, we examine the application of this statute to the Schabels' claims and the district's acts with a view to finding immunity only if it clearly applies. *165 We first examine the effect of the holding in Goss on … The Schabels have made no arguments either below or on appeal concerning immunity for negligent supervision. Issues not clearly raised and argued in a party's appellate brief are waived. Carrillo v.

Ball v. New Jersey Bell Telephone Co.

207 N.J. Super. 100 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 9, 1986

Extension of governmental tort liability in the manner urged by plaintiff here would clearly subvert the plainly expressed legislative mandate which is to immunize public bodies except where there is a statutory declaration … A fair reading of the license immunity section compels the conclusion that a critical fact which the State must establish in order to carry this burden is that it had either granted or denied a permit.

Thomas v. DeKalb County

227 Ga. App. 186 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Jun 27, 1997

Following the plaintiffs’ complaint and discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment on the grounds of sovereign immunity, qualified immunity, official immunity and immunity under OCGA § 31-11-8. … Because there is no evidence that DeKalb County created Thomas’ emergency, and she was not in the county’s custody or control, the plaintiffs have failed to establish this threshold element necessary to their 42 USC § 1983

G.W. Twilligear, Jr., Former County Judge of Real County, Texas and W.B. Sansome, Current Judge of Real County, Texas, Individually and in Their Official Capacities v. Joyce Cole Carrell, Individually and as Dependent Administratrix of the Estate of Pearl Matson Head

Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · Aug 26, 2004

immunity, [6] which the trial court denied. … Carrell also cites Bernardoni and Pritchard as establishing that a judge = s liability under section 671 exceeds the amount of his bond. See Bernardoni v. Holman , 177 S.W.2d 321, 322 (Tex. Civ. App.

Acevedo v. Pima County Adult Probation Department

142 Ariz. 360 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Nov 16, 1983

Absolute immunity for participants in judicial proceedings is well established: “This Court early held that judges of courts of superior or general authority are absolutely priviledged [sic] as respects civil suits to recover … Clearly, the nature of the suit, whether brought under § 1983 or as a common law tort claim, is irrelevant to the application of the doctrine of judicial immunity. See Challenge, Inc. v.

McCauley v. City of San Diego

190 Cal. App. 3d 981 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 30, 1987

The facts underlying Gonzales are clearly distinguishable from those we confront here. … Preliminarily, “[s]ection 815 establishes sovereign immunity in this state except as provided in the Tort Claims Act or other statute. [Citations.]” (Gonzales v.

City of Laredo v. Jorge Cigarroa

Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · Sep 9, 2026

That burden includes the obligation to establish a waiver of governmental immunity in suits against the government. See id.; City of San Antonio v. Smith, 562 S.W.3d 75, 80 (Tex. App. … Under Texas law, governmental units, including cities, are generally entitled to governmental immunity from suit and liability unless the state legislature clearly and unambiguously waives immunity.

Joannou v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes

219 Cal. App. 4th 746 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 12, 2013

Immunity was necessary in order to encourage local public entities to take remedial action to alleviate the hazards of such earth movements. (Ibid., italics added.) … Second, the type of earth movements that qualify as disasters under the Emergency Services Act are in the same temporal category as earthquakes.

Sanitary District of Decatur v. Pollution Control Board

66 Ill. App. 3d 251 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 8, 1978

plaintiff’s legal interests, in which the ripening seeds of litigation may be seen and which cast doubt, insecurity, and uncertainty upon plaintiff’s rights or status damages plaintiff’s pecuniary or material interests and establishes … Finally, PCB claims sovereign immunity as a bar to the action. Except as the legislature may provide by law, sovereign immunity was abolished by article XIII, section 4, of the Illinois Constitution of 1970.

Patterson v. Martin Forest Products, Inc.

774 So. 2d 1148 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Dec 15, 2000

It allows the policy of the workers' compensation immunity provisions to triumph totally over the policy of the Child Labor Law. … Allan's receipt of these benefits does not qualify as an election of remedies and while his acceptance of workers' compensation benefits will not bar his suit in tort, his employer (or its workers' compensation insurer) may

State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II

Court of Appeals of Arizona · Jul 20, 2015

As our supreme court has recently observed, “voters established as public policy that qualified patients cannot be penalized or denied any privilege as a consequence of their AMMA- compliant marijuana possession or use.” … preponderance of the evidence, that his or her actions fall within the range of immune action.”