Case law

Mt. Carmel Medical Center v. Board of County Commissioners

1 Kan. App. 2d 374 · Court of Appeals of Kansas · Jun 3, 1977

This is clearly the law in Kansas. (Pfannenstiel v. Doerfler, 152 Kan. 479 , 105 P.2d 886 ; Levier v. State, 209 Kan. 442 , 497 P.2d 265 .) … The deputy, as an agent of the sheriff, clearly had a statutory duty and obligation to reacquire custody of Love (K.S.A. 22-3427).

Guarrasi v. Scott

25 A.3d 394 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 21, 2011

Financial records of the Unified Judicial System are presumed to be open to any member of the public for inspection or copying during established business hours. … Further judicial immunity is not only immunity from damages, but also immunity from suit. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 , 112 S.Ct. 286 , 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991).

Shehan v. Gaston County

190 N.C. App. 803 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 3, 2008

Plaintiff alleged that she has located a person who is reasonably expected to qualify as an expert witness who will testify that Mr. Bishop was alive when defendant May ran over him. … Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 12(c), “on the grounds of collateral estoppel, sovereign immunity, public official immunity, and other forms of governmental immunity.”

Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Department of Water & Power

51 Cal. Rptr. 3d 206 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 20, 2006

Relying on the statutory language the court held “individuals who *1237 do not themselves qualify as employers may not be sued under the FEHA for alleged discriminatory acts.” (Reno v. … immunity be withdrawn in the particular case.

Cliff Gustafson v. DeLoss Dodds

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Apr 12, 2001

These facts are relevant because "'[w]e look to whether a reasonable official could have believed his or her conduct to be lawful in light of clearly established law and the information possessed by the official at the time … If official immunity existed only in the cramped sense used by the court of appeals, its qualified promise against personal civil liability to public officers would be hollow indeed.

James v. Farrington

844 S.W.2d 517 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Nov 17, 1992

waiver of sovereign immunity. … A determination that the Board had possession or control of the polling place does not end the inquiry for purposes of establishing an exception to sovereign immunity.

Bobbie Jean Lowe v. City of Moss Point, Mississippi, a Municipal Corporation

243 So. 3d 753 · Court of Appeals of Mississippi · Oct 3, 2017

And clearly, the converse must be true, such that narrower duties encompassed in a broad discretionary function may be rendered ministerial through statute or regulation. Miss. Transp. Comm’n v. … Because immunity has been established, it is unnecessary for us to address the parties’ alternative arguments, which were, likewise, not relied upon or addressed by the trial court. ¶13. AFFIRMED.

Wood v. City of Linden

218 N.J. Super. 11 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 26, 1987

We now reverse because plaintiff established a prima facie case. … Clearly, no evidence was presented to allow the jury to deliberate as to them.

South Texas College v. Curtis Roberson

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Feb 16, 2012

Therefore, when a party sues a governmental entity, the party must establish the State’s consent to suit or consent to liability either by reference to statute or through express legislative intent. See Tex. … Again, we turn our analysis on whether Roberson established the State’s consent to his cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty. Id.

University of Florida Board of Trustees, and The Florida Board of Governors v. Browning, Boisse

District Court of Appeal of Florida · Apr 3, 2024

because on the face of these counts, the plaintiffs clearly seek to recover only for what they consider to be economic loss. … As I already noted above, the plaintiffs here clearly sued to recover only economic loss—indeed, based on several novel legal theories.

Kane v. Her-Pet Refrigeration, Inc.

181 A.D.2d 257 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 27, 1992

Surveillance materials clearly do not constitute an attorney’s work product (Marte v Hickok Mfg. Co., 154 AD2d 173 , supra). … It is clearly desirable to have any questions about the accuracy of the films resolved before the trial along the lines adopted under the Uniform Rules.

Ryan v. Fahey

43 A.D.2d 429 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 22, 1974

Bather, we are permitting recovery, previously denied, after the liability has been established.” (23 N Y 2d 434, 439.) … S. 518) are clearly inapposite.

Davis v. City of Detroit

149 Mich. App. 249 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 18, 1986

If the defendant thought that this allegation in the complaint was insufficient to establish an exception to governmental immunity, the issue should have been raised prior to trial in a motion for summary disposition. … The record clearly reveals that when the plaintiff entered into areas that the trial court felt were inappropriate, plaintiff was prevented from making further inquiry.

STATE EX REL. KIRKSVILLE MISSOURI HOSP. CO. v. Jaynes

328 S.W.3d 418 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Nov 9, 2010

NERMC has not met its burden to establish that Dr. Flood's report is immune from discovery pursuant to either the first or second sentence of section 537.035.4. … Though the court observed that section 537.035.3 provides qualified immunity for individuals "if their negligence in granting staff privileges derives from their good faith reliance on a peer review committee's recommendation

State v. Kingbird

412 N.W.2d 350 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Sep 22, 1987

The evidence, however, established that his mother’s home was seven to eight miles away. … The statute clearly applies to the witness, not the defendant. A challenge to a grant of immunity, like the assertion of the privilege against self-incrimination, is personal.

Sellers v. Hauch

183 Mich. App. 1 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 2, 1990

However, these two cases are clearly distinguishable from Gallegos in that they involve the overruling of established common-law doctrines rather than the constitutional declaration with respect to the validity of a statute … Therefore, the parties on remand are free to relitigate any question of whether plaintiffs qualify for benefits under § 115, as it now stands in the aftermath of East-way. 8 *17 II.

Forgione v. Heck

736 A.2d 759 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 19, 1999

Based thereon, common pleas court concluded that the city was immune from liability, as the vehicle exception to governmental immunity did not apply to Forgione. Forgione appealed to this Court. … Thus, the pleadings and other evidence of record clearly establish that Forgione was “fleeing the police,” therefore there was no genuine issue of material fact for common pleas court to submit to the jury- There being no

Savio v. Travelers Insurance Co.

678 P.2d 549 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Mar 5, 1984

Medical malpractice not being such a risk, the physician was not immune from liability. See Dorr v. C.B. Johnson, Inc., 660 P.2d 517 (Colo.App.1983). … Establishment of a claim for breach of a good faith duty alone is not sufficient to establish a claim for punitive damages. Farmers Group, Inc. v. Trim-ble, supra.

Hart v. Brienza

246 N.C. App. 426 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 5, 2016

Law enforcement operations are clearly governmental activities for which a municipality is generally immune. … The unambiguous language in Gaston County’s liability insurance policy clearly preserves the defense of governmental immunity.

Dodge v. County of Erie

140 A.D.3d 1678 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 10, 2016

We further conclude that defendant failed to establish on its motion its entitlement as a matter of law to the qualified immunity set forth in Weiss v Fote ( 7 NY2d 579, 585 [1960], rearg denied 8 NY2d 934 [I960]). … immunity {Brown v State of New York, 79 AD3d 1579, 1582 [2010], citing Cummins v County of Onondaga, 198 AD2d 875, 877 [1993], affd 84 NY2d 322 [1994]).