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

Mims v. Clanton

222 Ga. App. 657 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Aug 15, 1996

“The Board of Commissioners failed to take any affirmative action to propose, endorse, ratify, or establish a fund to pay claims prior to or on the date of the subject incident. … Clearly Gwinnett County created a self-insurance plan which came within the constitutional provision. Logue v.

Kristi Newbrough v. State

Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth) · Oct 15, 2015

Brooks’s Immunity In her third issue, Newbrough argues that the trial court erred in not sua sponte granting immunity to Brooks after Brooks invoked her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and refused … Norman did not hold that the trial court has a sua sponte duty to grant immunity to a witness. Id.

Bailey v. Illinois Liquor Control Commission

405 Ill. App. 3d 550 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 10, 2010

The court refused to find, as a matter of law, that the defendant’s establishment was a school as intended by section 24 — 24. … The church asserted that it was immune from liability under section 24 — 24 of the School Code, while the plaintiff argued that immunity under section 24 — 24 did not cover the operation of a day care facility operated by

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

First Bank & Trust v. Maynahonah

313 P.3d 1044 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Oct 14, 2013

It observed that no resolutions of the Board established generally applicable tribal ageney principles. … Those cases clearly do not stand for the proposition that no action "by any tribal entity" 29 is needed to confer authority upon another to waive the Tribe's 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.

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.

Institute in Basic Life Principles, Inc. v. Watersmeet Township

217 Mich. App. 7 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 29, 1996

Nonetheless, where the agency’s interpretation is clearly wrong, the longstanding interpretation of a statute by the agency that administers it does not control. Id. … The corporations referred to in this section as Sunday schools or special religious societies, shall have all the rights, privileges, immunities and powers granted by this act to non-profit corporations generally in their

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.

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.

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.

Timothy Hays v. Chief Campos

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Aug 31, 2015

that he was entitled to absolute immunity or sovereign immunity; (3) Campos and Garcia did not establish that they were entitled to qualified immunity; and (4) appellant’s suit was timely and not barred by the statute … CLAIMS AGAINST GARCIA AND CAMPOS By his third issue, appellant asserts that Garcia and Campos did not establish that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because they were not entitled to qualified immunity.

Dillard v. Austin Independent School District

806 S.W.2d 589 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Mar 20, 1991

VII, § 1 (1955) establishes the matter of public education as a governmental function for all purposes). 5 AISD is not immune from suit, however, as the legislature has consented to suits against independent school districts … Our research reveals that all of the supreme court cases addressing this issue, however, involve either municipalities or the existence of a contract, and we decline to deviate from the established rule immunizing a governmental

Canario's, Inc. v. City of Austin

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Aug 28, 2015

101 “not later than six months after the day that the incident giving rise to the claim occurred”). 3 The standards applied when reviewing a trial court’s decision on a plea to the jurisdiction are well established … It also argues that any function performed by its Planning and Development Review Department “qualified as a ‘planning’ function, protected by immunity.”5 We disagree.

James Allen Walker, Jr. v. City of Brady and Richard L. Cory

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Aug 12, 1992

The statute clearly contemplates that an individual receive notice before any disciplinary action is taken. The facts fail to establish that the City complied with the statutory requirements before demoting Walker. … Section 37.009 contains no express or implied waiver of sovereign immunity. Id . We reject Walker's assertion that sovereign immunity is waived in declaratory judgment actions.

Tuscaloosa County v. Henderson

699 So. 2d 1274 · Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · Mar 28, 1997

Code 1975, establishes the office of license inspector and provides that each county commission is authorized and empowered to appoint an inspector. … In accordance with this statute, the county commission was responsible for hiring Tinsley, establishing Tinsley's salary, and paying Tinsley's salary and expenses.

Pulliam v. Motor Vehicle Administration

181 Md. App. 144 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 4, 2008

At that time, Arizona statutory law required the MVD to establish a Medical Advisory Board, but it had not done so. As a result, there were no medical standards established to address Bilodeau’s disorder. … The court rejected the state’s argument, explaining that the statute only limited governmental tort immunity to decisions involving the exercise of policy judgment, and did not immunize decisions that implemented or applied

Van Blaricom v. Kronenberg

112 Wash. App. 501 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 15, 2002

The court below had decided that even if Wyatt and his attorney acted under color of law, they were entitled to qualified immunity from suit because they relied on the statute prior to its invalidation. … The Supreme Court reversed and held that private parties who invoke state replevin, garnishment or attachment statutes that are later declared unconstitutional are not entitled to either immunity or qualified immunity from