Case law

Mueller v. McMillian Warner Insurance

287 Wis. 2d 154 · Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · Aug 2, 2005

. § 125.035(4)(b), which establishes an exception to immunity from liability for those *159 who furnish alcohol to underage drinkers. [1] Mueller also argues the court erred when it determined that what the Switlicks did … Laws, ch. 164, § 3, establishing a general Good Samaritan Law. [15] The 1977 statute does retain a distinction between ordinary individuals and trained professionals: [t]his immunity does not extend when employees trained

Childs v. Allen

105 P.3d 411 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 11, 2005

Thus, the qualified immunity afforded to DSHS caseworkers does not affect the nature of the immunity granted to a substance abuse evaluator such as Allen. Allen relies on Gustafson v. … Here, there was no reasonable possibility of reversal because Allen was clearly entitled to absolute witness immunity and was not the proximate cause of Childs injuries.

Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool v. City of Hidalgo

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Jan 9, 2020

Only the sovereign’s own consent could qualify the absolute character of that immunity.”). … The intent of the legislature “must be expressed clearly, either explicitly or by necessary implication.” Id.

Daniel Githua Njogo v. State

Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth) · Dec 31, 2018

is categorically immune from a harm analysis—only when the United States Supreme Court has labeled it as such. … Although article 44.46 does not address the precise circumstance present here—the trial court’s failure to discern (at least on the record) whether each veniremember was qualified—it establishes that matters of absolute

Mastrocola v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority

941 A.2d 81 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 8, 2008

The trial court likened preemption to the defense of immunity which must be pleaded as new matter. … SEPTA does not claim that it is immune from any common law tort claim.

Primiano v. City of Philadelphia

739 A.2d 1172 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 29, 1999

Plaintiff noted that the property was the site of a commercial establishment. … The specific language of § 1922 speaks about “ascertaining the intention of the General Assembly” however, there is no need to resort to trying to ascertain the intent of the General Assembly when the language clearly manifests

Rob L. Newby v. Sam Chambers, J. Cunningham, G. Currie, M. Roesler, Shannon Kersh, Vickie Barrow, and the State of Texas

Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · May 21, 2009

(holding that suit against sheriff was a suit against the county, and both were immune from suit by virtue of sovereign immunity). … Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing his claims for damages against appellees in their official capacity. [3] Appellees also asserted their rights to A qualified, official, and sovereign immunity

Arlene Carothers v. City of Water Valley, Mississippi

242 So. 3d 138 · Court of Appeals of Mississippi · May 16, 2017

Carothers must show more than mere negligence to establish reckless disregard and remove the City’s immunity. Id. This claim is without merit. ¶15. … This Court previously held “that if the statement of issues and the appellant’s brief 9 clearly show the basis for the appeal, then the issue can be addressed on the merits

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.

Furst v. Isom

85 Md. App. 407 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 17, 1991

He makes the point that, because the court in Pleet merely interpreted the statutory provision at issue and did not establish any new principle of law, neither overruling past precedents nor involving an issue of first impression … , not clearly foreshadowed, see Chevron Oil Company v.

State Ex Rel. Suthers v. Cash Advance & Preferred Cash Loans

205 P.3d 389 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Jul 10, 2008

“[A] sue or be sued clause will only accomplish a waiver when the clause clearly expresses an intent to waive immunity,” not where conditions placed on the waiver are left unmet. Sanchez v. … The Attorney General must also establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the individuals for whom the trial court issued arrest warrants are not entitled to immunity.

Wilson v. Ridgway Area School District

141 Pa. Commw. 607 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 8, 1991

In this motion, District also asserted that it was immune based on Crowell v. … Summary judgment is only appropriate when, after examining the record in favor of the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant clearly establishes its entitlement to judgment as a matter

The State of Texas, by and Through the Office of the Attorney General of Texas v. City of San Marcos; Jane Hughson, Mayor of San Marcos; Matthew Mendoza, Saul Gonzales, Alyssa Garza, Shane Scott, Lorenzo Gonzalez, and Amanda Rodriguez, Members of the City Council of San Marcos; Stephanie Reyes, City Manager of San Marcos; And Stan Standridge, Chief of Police of San Marcos; In Their Official Capacities

Texas Court of Appeals, 15th District · Apr 17, 2025

Appellees asserted that governmental immunity shielded the City from suit and the individually named City Officials were protected by governmental immunity. … In re State, 2024 WL 2983176, at *4 (“Indeed, the violation of duly enacted state law by local government officials clearly inflicts irreparable harm on the State.”

Stewart v. District Attorney for the Eighteenth Circuit Court District for the State of Mississippi

923 So. 2d 1017 · Court of Appeals of Mississippi · Aug 23, 2005

First, in determining whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law, it must first be ascertained “whether an official’s conduct deprived a ... plaintiff of a ‘clearly established’ constitutional … Therefore, the defense of qualified immunity is applicable and the district attorney’s office has incurred no liability to Stewart. ¶ 41.

Carroll v. Paddock

317 Ill. App. 3d 985 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 11, 2000

The Niehaus court held that the characteristics that make a not-for-profit corporation a charitable organization do not, without more, also qualify the corporation as a local public entity under the Act. … According to the Hospital, these detailed provisions clearly place its activities within the definition of public business. See 745 ILCS 10/6 — 101 through 6 — 110 (West 1998).

People v. Carter

174 Ill. App. 3d 369 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 25, 1988

It is well established that Illinois courts have no inherent power to grant immunity in order to secure testimony which the defense deems relevant. (People v. Bracey (1981), 93 Ill. … Smith (3d Cir. 1980), 615 F.2d 964 , in which the Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that a Federal district court may grant immunity where a potential defense witness can offer clearly exculpatory testimony and where the

Lawrence v. Weiner

Connecticut Appellate Court · Jan 6, 2015

The fact that the court nevertheless concluded, as do we, that the plaintiff had failed to allege facts that, if proven, would overcome the immunity provided by § 4-165, does not establish that it failed to view his allegations … ‘‘[I]t is the burden of the party who seeks the exercise of jurisdiction in his favor . . . clearly to allege facts [sufficient] to invoke judicial resolution of the dispute.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.)

Susan Combs, Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts and the Office of the Comptroller of Public Accounts v. the Texas Civil Rights Project and Sarah Canright

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Aug 29, 2013

immunity. … is on the government employee to establish all elements of the defense.

KIRCHNER, JASON v. COUNTY OF NIAGARA

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 28, 2013

We also reject the contention of the County of Niagara and Caldwell that they were entitled to qualified immunity. … Here, plaintiff alleged that Caldwell’s actions were made in bad faith, thus precluding application of the defense of qualified immunity at this stage of the litigation (cf. Arzeno v Mack, 39 AD3d 341, 342).

Maule v. Conduit & Foundation Corp.

124 N.J. Super. 488 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 2, 1973

There has been a steady movement away from immunity * * *. … But the second proposition is qualified by limitations which compound the difficulties of one who assails the legislative decision.