Case law

Burrill v. Michigan

90 Mich. App. 408 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 23, 1979

The defendant clearly had no owner’s or lessee’s interest and thus no control of the premises. … GCR 1963, 116.4 requires the affidavits be made on personal knowledge and set forth with particularity such facts as would be admissible as evidence to establish or deny the grounds set forth.

Kurtz v. Williams

188 Ga. App. 14 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Jul 1, 1988

Contrary to appellant’s assertion, appellee’s suit against appellant was not barred by the doctrine of official immunity. … author acted maliciously in writing and sending the report in order to establish a right to damages.

Pate v. Worthington

679 So. 2d 790 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jun 20, 1996

Mirkhani and Worthington moved for summary judgment on the basis that the actions of the three inmates were unforeseeable and therefore they acted reasonably and, in any event, they were entitled to qualified immunity. … established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person should have known.

Petipren v. Jaskowski

294 Mich. App. 419 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 20, 2011

Those cases have concluded that acts such as commenting on an official governmental matter and making personnel or employment decisions clearly fall within the scope of the executive authority of the highest executive officials … Indeed, the essential duties of the police chief as set forth in the job description for the police chief of the village of Port Sanilac are administrative in nature and are clearly distinct from the nature of the duties

CIJII LUNDY v. HANCOCK COUNTY

Court of Appeals of Georgia · Jun 23, 2023

A waiver of sovereign immunity must be established by the party seeking to benefit from that waiver, and when a litigant fails to bear this burden, the trial court must dismiss the complaint . . . for lack of subject-matter … App. 448, 450 (820 SE2d 75) (2018) (waiver of sovereign immunity must be established by the party seeking to benefit from such waiver).

Ed Sivak v. Georgia Department of Natural Resources

Court of Appeals of Georgia · Mar 13, 2024

United States, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held that “[t]he decision whether or not to post warning signs at Dinosaur National Monument [was] clearly discretionary as it involve[d] an element of judgment or choice … as it was by historical and aesthetic considerations, was based on a consideration of social, political, and economic factors29 and is “clearly [a] matter[ ] into which courts in general and judges in particular are ill

Mitchell v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.

168 Ga. App. 126 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Sep 7, 1983

Accordingly, because municipal immunity would be an absolute defense to Mitchell’s claim against the City and because the grant of summary judgment to Hartford effectively establishes the viability of that defense, we find … Now, it has been established that the City does in fact have a liability policy.

O'Hanley v. City of Gloucester

1993 Mass. App. Div. 119 · Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · Jun 8, 1993

The chronology of events which culminated in the termination of O’Hanley’s benefits clearly indicates that the City took no effective action cognizable under the Ordinance. … Legislative abrogation of sovereign immunity was unnecessary, however, for those common law claims historically actionable against a governmental entity.

NGM INSURANCE COMPANY F/K/A NATIONAL GRANGE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. LISA MCCARTHY ABATE

Court of Appeals of Georgia · Mar 14, 2023

The agreement thus clearly does not absolve NGM from continuing to make payments to Abate; indeed, the whole point of this provision is to establish Abate’s right to receive payments in exchange for foreclosing any underlying … of the contract that is within the control of the promisor but instead merely reflects the “hornbook law . . . that an assignee stands in the shoes of the assignor . . .” so that the “assignee has no greater rights or immunities

People Ex Rel. Hartigan v. Knecht Services, Inc.

216 Ill. App. 3d 843 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 26, 1991

Stat. 1987, ch. 110, par. 2 — 619(a)(9)) on the basis of absolute immunity. … The Attorney General contends that he is entitled to absolute immunity since the allegedly libelous statements were made in conjunction with a matter clearly committed to the responsibility of the Attorney General.

Normand v. Fox

940 S.W.2d 401 · Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco) · Mar 5, 1997

Furthermore, Title 4 of the Family Code does not provide for interlocutory appeal. 2 Thus, only if the protective order qualifies as a final judgment are we empowered to review it. … Temporary orders are clearly interlocutory and not appealable. Id. § 109.001(c); Cook, 886 S.W.2d at 839 . .

Erickson Oil Products, Inc. v. State

184 Wis. 2d 36 · Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · Apr 5, 1994

Because the State legislature has not clearly and expressly consented to be sued, the *41 State retained its sovereign immunity, and because there is no right to hold a sovereign liable and, in any event, a remedy is available … Erickson does not dispute that under the sovereign immunity rule, the State cannot be sued unless it con *43 sents. See WlS. CONST, art. IV, § 27. 3 Additionally, the consent must be clearly and expressly stated.

Foret v. Terrebone, Ltd.

621 So. 2d 855 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jun 29, 1993

He was recognized by the trial court has having previously qualified as an expert in safety design and mechanical engineering and was tendered and accepted as such. … The record as reviewed above establishes that the plaintiff here has clearly complied with that requirement and the judgment appealed from will, therefore, be affirmed. AFFIRMED.

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

Powell v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice

251 S.W.3d 783 · Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Mar 27, 2008

During the hearing, Martinez's counsel argued that Powell's claim lacked sufficient specificity to overcome a police officer's qualified immunity from civil rights suits. … I believe that Powell clearly requested compensatory damages, at least against Martinez.

Blackman v. Stagno

35 A.D.3d 776 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 26, 2006

The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint by demonstrating that the statements made to the plaintiffs employer by Frohlinger on behalf of Stagno were “fairly made … To be afforded the protection of qualified immunity, “[t]he interest championed by the communicant, viewed as constituting a somewhat lesser degree of importance than those interests vindicated in communications afforded

Farra v. City of Dayton

62 Ohio App. 3d 487 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 10, 1989

may be asserted to establish nonliability: a * * * “(5) The political subdivision is immune from liability if the injury, death, or loss to persons or property resulted from the exercise of judgment or discretion in determining … The phrase “any act or omission” clearly indicates a legislative intent to grant immunity to political subdivisions in the absence of express provision to the contrary. Burr is not determinative.

Woods v. Missouri Department of Corrections

806 S.W.2d 761 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Apr 16, 1991

and qualified immunity; (6) appellant’s §§ 1983 and 1985 claims fail to state a claim as to the Department of Corrections as it is protected by sovereign immunity; (7) appellant’s §§ 1983 and 1985 and various constitutional … The court clearly refers to the concept of jurisdiction as preliminary, stressing the fact that a movant is not required to show that there is no material issue of fact to be decided by unassailable proof, recognizing that

S. Wise v. Huntingdon County Housing Development Corp.

212 A.3d 1156 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 12, 2019

To defeat the defense of sovereign immunity, the plaintiff must also establish that his or her allegations fall within one of the nine enumerated exceptions to sovereign immunity … Nonetheless, even assuming arguendo that such is true, the Commonwealth’s breach of its duty does not remove the sovereign immunity bar precluding Wise’s action against the Commonwealth, unless she establishes that her claim

In re Marriage of Murray

2014 IL App (2d) 121253 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 29, 2014

App. 3d 78, 80 (1994), the Conservation District argues that the penalty prescribed by section 35 of the Withholding Act qualifies as “ ‘punitive or exemplary damages’ ” under section 2-102 of the Tort Immunity … App. 3d at 82-83. ¶ 50 Further, denying the Conservation District immunity from a penalty under section 35 of the Withholding Act would contravene the well-established policy of section 2-102 of the Tort