Case law

Town of Highland Park v. Iron Crow Construction, Inc.

168 S.W.3d 313 · Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas) · Aug 10, 2005

In contrast, declaratory-judgment suits seeking to establish a contract’s validity, to enforce performance under a contract, or to impose contractual liabilities are suits against the State because such suits attempt to control … In deciding McMahon, we used the four factors set forth by the supreme court in Taylor to determine whether the Legislature has clearly and unambiguously waived sovereign immunity: (i) the statute waives immunity beyond doubt

Ceellu Williams v. Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center

Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco) · May 21, 2015

When dealing with these immunities, the Legislature has been required to express its intent to waive immunity clearly and unambiguously. Id. (citing Univ. of Tex. Med. Branch at Galveston v. … Thus, immunity will bar even an otherwise proper UDJA suit that has the effect of establishing a right to relief against the State or its political subdivisions for which the Legislature has not waived immunity.

City & County of Denver v. Board of Assessment Appeals

14 Brief Times Rptr. 441 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Apr 12, 1990

, not in accord with the procedures or procedural ■ limitations of this article, or is otherwise required by law, an abuse or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion, based upon findings of fact that are clearly erroneous … The BOAA is uniquely qualified by experience to determine what constitutes a matter of statewide concern or results in a significant decrease in the assessed value of property in a given county.

Cox v. Galena Park Independent School District

895 S.W.2d 745 · Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Dec 1, 1994

The grounds stated in the motion for summary judgment were: (1) that Cox failed to state a cause of action for which relief may be granted, and (2) the doctrine of governmental or qualified immunity bars all tort claims against … To sustain a summary judgment, we must determine that the summary judgment evidence establishes as a matter of law that no genuine issue of material fact exists as to one or more of the essential elements of the cause of

Karen Spease and Craig Spease v. the Honorable Kathleen Olivares, Judge of the 205th District Court of El Paso County, Texas

509 S.W.3d 512 · Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso) · May 31, 2016

“In determining whether an act was clearly outside a judge’s jurisdiction for judicial immunity purposes, the focus is not on whether the judge’s specific act was proper or improper, but on whether the judge had the jurisdiction … That case involved a challenge to a jail religious service on Establishment Clause grounds.

Rogers v. Cooper

575 So. 2d 266 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 18, 1991

In reversing the award of attorney's fees to the defendant, the appellate court did not hold that the department was immune from the provisions of Section 57.105. … However, a review of the role of the department in such proceedings, as specified by the statutes, clearly reveals that the department is much more than a nominal party.

Kirchner v. County of Niagara

107 A.D.3d 1620 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 28, 2013

Prosecutors are afforded only qualified immunity when acting in an investigative capacity (see id. at 275 ; Johnson, 308 AD2d at 285 ; Claude H. v County of Oneida, 214 AD2d 964, 965 [1995]). … We also reject the contention of the County of Niagara and Caldwell that they were entitled to qualified immunity.

Holt v. Brock

California Court of Appeal · Nov 21, 2022

III Quasi-judicial Immunity Plaintiff contends that Brock does not qualify for quasi-judicial immunity. … Mere appointment by the court is insufficient to establish quasi-judicial immunity.

Fogg v. MacAluso

870 P.2d 525 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Mar 21, 1994

Thus, in order to retain sovereign immunity, *527 defendants need only establish that, at the time he parked his car utilizing proper visual signals, Macaluso was responding to an emergency call. … Finally, the Trinity court declared that appellate review of the trial court’s determination of such threshold factual issues is to be conducted using a highly deferential, clearly erroneous standard.

Bottling Group, LLC v. Giovanni E. Bastien

District Court of Appeal of Florida · Apr 24, 2024

The trial court found immunity applied. See id. … These facts, the court held, was sufficient to establish estoppel. See id. In the third case, Ocean Reef Club, Inc. v.

Chapman v. Pollock

69 N.C. App. 588 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 17, 1984

Shahady’s opinions was established. … Even though expert testimony is usually needed to establish what the practices and standards of doctors in a particular specialty and area are, “[w]hen the standard of care . . . is once established, departure therefrom may

Gustafson v. State

854 P.2d 751 · Court of Appeals of Alaska · Jun 18, 1993

Our review of the record convinces us that Judge Johnstone’s sentencing decision *767 is not clearly mistaken. McClain v. State, 519 P.2d 811, 813-14 (Alaska 1974). … Rule 6(g) provides that indictments returned by that panel are nevertheless valid if a majority of the qualified grand jurors concurred in the indictment. 7 . At the sentencing hearing, Dr.

People v. Onofrio

65 Cal. App. 2d 584 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 29, 1944

The court then continued: “There is no rule better established or more universally recognized by the courts than that where competent evidence is produced on a trial the courts will not stop to inquire or investigate the … Such study of the subject as was incidental to his work on the vice squad, together with his extensive experience, served to qualify him satisfactorily. (See People v.

Starship Enterprises of Atlanta, Inc. v. Charlotte J. Nash, Gwinnett County Board of Commissioners, in Her Individual Capacity

Court of Appeals of Georgia · Oct 21, 2020

and other adult establishments operating within the county obtain an adult establishment license. … But, in enacting the Ordinance, the Commissioners clearly were engaged in a core legislative function. See Schumacher v.

Newsome v. Department of Human Resources

199 Ga. App. 419 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Feb 25, 1991

Clearly under the precedent established by this authority, the [status of the parties] at the time of the accident was not controlling.” Arnold v. Arnold, 189 Ga. App. 101, 103-104 ( 375 SE2d 225 ) (1988). … “These circumstances do not establish parental negligence.

Harris County v. Cynthia McFarland

Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Jan 9, 2025

In the absence of willful, wanton, or grossly negligent conduct, a licensee plaintiff who seeks to establish a waiver of immunity for a premises defect under the TTCA must prove the following elements to establish a breach … We thus hold McFarland failed to establish a waiver of immunity for Harris County in connection with her fall.

Carroll v. Board of Regents of University System

324 Ga. App. 598 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Nov 12, 2013

“A waiver of sovereign immunity must be established by the party seeking to benefit from that waiver.” (Punctuation and footnote omitted.) Id. … It is well established that neither the Georgia Constitution nor any state statute waives sovereign immunity for equitable claims against the State, such as claims for unjust enrichment and promissory estoppel.

Sedlacek v. A.O. Smith Corp.

2010 Pa. Super. 25 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 25, 2010

. ¶ 5 Additionally, both the WCA and ODA contain provisions purporting to establish the compensation schemes established in the WCA and ODA as “exclusive” remedies for an employee, as against his employer, for a work-related … In support of this position, ALCOA points out that the cases cited by appellants involve occupational diseases that are clearly not covered under the Acts. ¶ 13 ALCOA’s position is well taken.

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.

Urbano v. Meneses

288 Pa. Super. 103 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 19, 1981

As for the individual members of the zoning board, we conclude that these individuals enjoy immunity, but not the immunity afforded high public officials but, rather, judicial immunity. … According to the Urbanos, on September 10, 1970, “certain Township records” were made available and it is alleged that these records “clearly established” fraud in the review of the Urbanos applications.