Case law

Leroy Scott Roach v. State

Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo) · Oct 11, 2012

According to the Dillas, this sentence clearly establishes permission to file suit. … This last part of the statute clearly implicates the presentment condition precedent contained in subparagraph (a).

McLaughlin v. Oxley

297 P.3d 1007 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Jul 5, 2012

We review de novo whether the court should have entered summary judgment as to such statutory immunity. 8 Summary judgment is appropriate only if the pleadings, affidavits, depositions, or admissions in the record establish … .2d at 500 (where the plain language of the statute is clear and unambiguous, "the statute should be construed as written, giving full effect to the words chosen, as it is presumed that the General Assembly meant what it clearly

Ratcliff v. Town of Mandeville

491 So. 2d 436 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Oct 10, 1986

Clearly a boat dock or launch would come under the definition of a structure. … [LSA-R.S.] 9:2795 is not designed to re-establish immunity on the basis of a sovereign status.

Barnes v. General Tire & Rubber Co.

2 Mass. Supp. 423 · Massachusetts Superior Court · May 29, 1981

Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947), articulates , a qualified immunity from discovery for the work product and mental impressions of a party’s attorney. … Braddick, 595 F2d 961, 967 (5th Cir. 1979). 4 Work prepared by INA at the request of the plaintiff’s counsel falls within the qualified immunity from discovery of Rule 26(b)(3).

Plaisance v. Allstate Insurance Co.

8 La.App. 3 Cir. 566 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Nov 5, 2008

Under Louisiana jurisprudence, damages for lost wages may be established by any proof which reasonably establishes the claim, including the plaintiffs own reasonable testimony. … While claims for past lost wages must be established with some degree of certainty, they need not be proven with mathematical certainty, but only by such proof as reasonably establishes the plaintiffs claim.

Gtech Corp. v. Steele

549 S.W.3d 768 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jan 11, 2018

Once it satisfied that burden, the burden shifted to [the claimant] to establish, or at least raise a fact issue on, a waiver of immunity."). 461 S.W.3d 117 . Id. at 124 . … The Brown & Gay court also distinguished these concepts from the federal qualified-immunity doctrine and the Texas official-immunity doctrine, maintaining that these embodied underlying policies that "are simply irrelevant

Swainbank v. Coombs

19 Conn. Super. Ct. 391 · Connecticut Superior Court · May 18, 1955

The statute clearly provides for indemnification from loss, not indemnification from liability. Cf. Shea v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 98 Conn. 447, 451 ; General Statutes § 6191; Bartlett v. Travelers Ins. … It is perfectly correct that the fact that Coombs’s liability must first be established before there is any liability on the part of the board of education is no bar to a joinder.

McLain v. Superior Court

99 Cal. App. 2d 109 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 21, 1950

Clearly, he would have served that sentence individually and not as chairman of the board of trustees. … Not only does it touch upon the bribery charged, but, if it be supplemented by proof of felonious intent thereby to influence the vote of Assemblyman Evans as charged, it will go far to establish the crime.

Chester William Ingram, Jr., M.D. v. Wayne Scott

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · May 11, 2000

We will first examine whether Scott established the affirmative defenses of official and sovereign immunity. Is Scott shielded by official and sovereign immunity? … It was Scott's burden to establish his entitlement to official immunity. See id . at 653. Scott presented no evidence or argument to establish the elements of the defense.

People v. Myles

California Court of Appeal · Sep 29, 2021

The trial court found the petition established a prima facie case and issued an order to show cause. … Accordingly, the Trujillo court’s reasoning does not apply here, because the Legislature clearly and expressly made provision for the court to go beyond the record of conviction to determine whether a defendant qualifies

State Ex Rel. Lowe v. Nelson

202 So. 2d 232 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Sep 15, 1967

The right of the defendant here violated, does not stem from the recent more liberal decisions above, but is one which basically has been an established right for years. … The transcript of the proceedings before Grand Jury clearly shows that the State Attorney was not overly friendly nor overly zealous in advising the defendant of his rights.

Zapp v. Kukuris

16 Brief Times Rptr. 686 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Apr 23, 1992

Cain, supra, we conclude that a police officer operating an emergency vehicle within the course of employment in the pursuit of a suspect is not shielded from liability if it is established that such operation was done with … Here, plaintiffs alleged that their daughter’s death proximately resulted from the operation of emergency vehicles by public employees in “reckless disregard of the probable consequences of their acts which were clearly foreseeable

Taliaferro v. Locke

182 Cal. App. 2d 752 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 18, 1960

But the case turned upon the clearly mandatory provision of the Bed Light Abatement Act that a district attorney “must bring such action [abatement proceedings] whenever directed by the board of supervisors. ...” … It should also be noted that although Government Code section 26501 uses the sometimes mandatory “shall” in defining the district attorney’s duty to institute proceedings, the use is qualified by the ensuing clauses that

Burns v. Mayor of Rockville

71 Md. App. 293 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 11, 1987

They assure us that since municipal immunity was established by judicial decision rather than by the General Assembly, this Court possesses the authority to accomplish their request. We do not accede to their request. … The provisions of Art. 28, § 2-111, which the Court construed, provided: "(a) Establishment; purposes. — The Commission shall establish an adequate comprehensive insurance program: (1) To compensate for injury to or death

Mass Transit Administration v. Granite Construction Co.

57 Md. App. 766 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 6, 1984

More importantly, the evidence does not establish that MTA “misled” Granite. … That provision was clearly intended to avoid one bidder gaining an advantage over other bidders by acquiring information not furnished the other bidders.

Welch v. Illinois Supreme Court

Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 4, 2001

As Welch’s employer, Justice Heiple is protected by a qualified privilege. See Vajda v. Arthur Andersen & Co. , 253 Ill. App. 3d 345, 358-59 (1993). … It is well established that a breach of contract claim against the State is a present claim for relief barred by sovereign immunity. See, e.g. , Smith v. Jones , 113 Ill. 2d 126, 132-33 (1986).

City of Whitesboro, Texas v. Diana Montgomery

Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas) · Aug 20, 2024

The statements, therefore, do not qualify as a present sense impression. See id. … Although the City retains immunity for its discretionary decisions, it is not immune from liability for negligent implementation of those decisions or the negligent maintenance of its premises.

Manuel v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.

173 Cal. App. 4th 927 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 20, 2009

[T]he *945 record clearly indicates that the USES failed to observe established regulations governing its conduct. … This is clearly not enough. (Calvillo, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 729 .)

Bonus-Bilt, Inc. v. United Grocers, Ltd.

136 Cal. App. 3d 429 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 23, 1982

On the other hand, manufacturers’ liability clearly arises where plaintiff employee is injured in using a product designed and manufactured by his employer primarily for sale to the general public and only incidentally used … At the trial of the action the issue so specified shall be deemed established and the action shall proceed as to the issues remaining.

Azar v. Ferrari

898 A.2d 55 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 3, 2006

Moreover, summary judgment is only appropriate when, after examining the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue of material fact, and the moving party clearly establishes that … Azar alleges that the affidavit of Defendant Ferrari may not be used to establish the defense of high public official immunity, citing Nanty-Glo Boro. v. American Surety Co., 309 Pa. 236 , 163 A. 523 (1932).