Case law

Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Superior Court of San Mateo County

10 Cal. App. 5th 563 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 5, 2017

There is no dispute that PG&E’s license under its utility tariff constitutes an “interest” in San Mateo County Memorial Park that qualifies for protection under this paragraph. … The statute “clearly” applies to “private owners of easements and of revocable licenses.” (Hubbard, supra, 50 Cal.3d at p. 197.)

Pastore v. COM., STATE SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUC.

152 Pa. Commw. 111 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 4, 1992

and waives that immunity as to specified categories of claims. … Sovereign immunity pursuant to Chapter 85 of the Judicial Code in that none of the exceptions to immunity are applicable; 2.

Monarch Beverage Company, Inc. v. David Cook, in his official capacity as Chairman of the Indiana Alcohol and Tobacco Commission

48 N.E.3d 325 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 17, 2015

Our methodology for interpreting and applying provisions of the Indiana Constitution is well established. … The party challenging the constitutionality of a statute bears the high burden of overcoming this presumption and establishing a constitutional violation, and any doubts are resolved in favor

Quintana v. City of Westminster

56 P.3d 1193 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Apr 25, 2002

Cordova, supra, established the legal standard by which courts must consider governmental immunity cases involving emergency vehicles. … The courts must then determine whether immunity is waived under the circumstances.

Mark T. Holtzapple, Richard R. Davison, Bruce E. Dale and Texas a & M University System v. AFEX Corporation

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Aug 28, 1997

"Official immunity" is one of several interchangeable terms, including "quasi-judicial immunity," "qualified immunity," and "good-faith immunity," describing an affirmative defense for governmental employees sued in their … To be entitled to summary judgment on the basis of official immunity, a defendant must conclusively establish that a reasonably prudent person in the same or similar circumstances "could have believed" his actions to be lawful

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.

People v. Knight

239 Cal. App. 4th 1 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 31, 2015

The law clearly favors such disclosure. … However, Marsden does not establish a rule of per se reversible error. (People v. Chavez (1980) 26 Cal.3d 334, 348-349; Reed, supra, 183 Cal.App.4th at p. 1148; People v. Washington (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 940, 944.)

Farber v. Bobear

2010 La.App. 4 Cir. 0985 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jan 19, 2011

Arceneaux argued that, as an employee of the LSBME, she is immune from liability for defamation under La.Rev.Stat. § 37:1287(A). We agree with Ms. … However, plaintiff was clearly reprimanded for “clinical mismanagement” and “inappropriate prescriptions of Lincocin.”

Hines v. Columbia Livestock Market of Lake City, Inc.

12 Fla. L. Weekly 2803 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 10, 1987

City of Hialeah, 468 So.2d 912 (Fla.1985), and determined that the allegations of negligence involve discretionary governmental functions which are immune from suit despite the limited waiver of sovereign immunity effectuated … Trianon Park establishes that: ‘there is no governmental tort liability for the action or inaction of governmental officials or employees in carrying out the discretionary governmental functions [of enforcing the laws and

Dozier v. Clayton County Hospital Authority

206 Ga. App. 62 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Oct 8, 1992

However, to the extent that the complaint avers claims based on the acts or omissions of agents or staff employees who are not “established” by the movant hospital as qualifying as professionals under Gillis, supra, no supporting … We construe OCGA § 9-11-9.1 as establishing an ‘exception to the general liberality of pleading permitted under (the Civil Practice Act, OCGA § 9-11-1 et seq.)’

Vergos v. McNeal

53 Cal. Rptr. 3d 647 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 23, 2007

Statutory hearing procedures qualify as official proceedings authorized by law for § 425.16 purposes. (E.g., Kibler v. … She also argues she is entitled to absolute and qualified immunity, and plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.

Cottonwood Development Corporation v. Preston Hollow Capital, LLC; PHCC LLC; And Winstead, P.C.

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Nov 27, 2024

As the summary-judgment movant on an affirmative defense, Winstead has the burden of conclusively establishing that attorney immunity bars Cottonwood’s recovery on its claims. See Taylor v. … Because Winstead conclusively established that attorney immunity bars Cottonwood’s recovery, summary judgment was proper. We overrule Cottonwood’s sixth and final issue.

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).

Khavaris Hill v. Hinds County, Mississippi

237 So. 3d 838 · Court of Appeals of Mississippi · Aug 8, 2017

On February 26, 2014, a hearing was held in that court on the individual deputies’ motion for summary judgment premised upon qualified immunity. … Immunity ¶10.

Gomez v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF EL PASO

148 S.W.3d 471 · Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso) · Oct 20, 2004

Sovereign immunity encompasses two principles: immunity from suit and immunity from liability. Texas Natural Resource Conservation Comm’n v. IT-Davy, 74 S.W.3d 849, 853 (Tex.2002). … Actions and decisions by officials that are merely inept, erroneous, ineffective, or negligent do not amount to deliberate indifference and do not divest officials of qualified immunity. Id.

Spurrell v. Block

40 Wash. App. 854 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 10, 1985

State, 103 Wn.2d 144 , 690 P.2d 1163 (1984), the Supreme Court recognized that police officers have a qualified immunity from false imprisonment claims arising out of everyday operational acts. … We do not suggest, however, that the failure to observe the statute in this case automatically establishes liability; failure to establish immunity does not prove the elements of a claim.

Bieber v. Perry Cty. Bd. of Commrs.

2020 Ohio 3996 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 5, 2020

R.C. 2744.02 establishes governmental immunity for political subdivisions and their employees: “ * * * [a] political subdivision is not liable in damages in a civil action for injury, death, or loss to person or property … The third tier is to determine whether the political subdivision is entitled to a defense or qualified immunity under R.C. 2744.03(A). Vasquez-Comer v. City of Toledo, 6th Dist. Lucas No.

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.

Girardon v. Angelone

234 A.D. 351 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 15, 1932

This point, the appellant contends, was clearly not well taken, since the second motion was for a reconsideration on new affidavits and additional papers. (Conlen v. Rizer, 109 App. Div. 537 .) … These were matters which were not within the range of judicial notice and needed to be established in an appropriate way.

Fulton v. Pontiac General Hospital

160 Mich. App. 728 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 15, 1987

The Court: Did you file any kind of affidavit or document to establish that were [sic] was an implied contract? Ms. Weisberg: I don’t believe there have been any affidavits filed at this time. … Indeed, under that subrule, plaintiff’s allegations are accepted as true, as are any conclusions that may reasonably be drawn therefrom, and the motion must be denied unless the claim is so clearly unenforceable as a matter