Case law

Foxworthy v. Puyallup Tribe of Indians Ass'n

169 P.3d 53 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 30, 2007

Thus, if Foxworthy is to sustain her cause of action, she must establish that Congress has impliedly abrogated tribal sovereign immunity. 3. … tribal casino instead of in a non-Indian establishment off the reservation.

Cooney v. Rossiter

976 N.E.2d 441 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 10, 2012

The federal district court dismissed the lawsuit, finding the defendants immune, stating: “[I]t is well-established that court-appointed psychological evaluators are ‘protected by the same immunity … As the court stated in Defend: “The law thus clearly allows for an absolute privilege where there exists a significant interest in protecting the type of speech involved.”

State of Missouri ex rel City of Lee's Summit, Missouri v. Honorabel Kenneth R. Garrett, III

568 S.W.3d 515 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Feb 13, 2019

Prohibition is therefore an appropriate remedy when “a defendant is clearly entitled to immunity.” State ex rel. Bd. of Trs. of City of North Kansas City Mem'l Hosp. v. … It is well established that enforcement of ordinances is a governmental function.” Nevada v. Bickel, 267 S.W.3d at 783.

Mitchell v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.

168 Ga. App. 126 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Sep 7, 1983

Accordingly, because municipal immunity would be an absolute defense to Mitchell’s claim against the City and because the grant of summary judgment to Hartford effectively establishes the viability of that defense, we find … Now, it has been established that the City does in fact have a liability policy.

Beeson v. Palombo

220 N.C. App. 274 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 1, 2012

Standard of Review Defendant’s appeal the trial court’s order denying summary judgment; the standard of review for an order denying summary judgment is well-established: We review a trial court order granting or denying a … Clearly, Mr.

American Bible Society v. Lewisohn

48 A.D.2d 308 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 12, 1975

We find that the record clearly establishes that petitioner is not organized exclusively "for religious, charitable * * * educational, moral or mental improvement * * * purposes, but * * * is organized * * * exclusively for … note, that even to the extent that petitioner’s activities are religious within the meaning of the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion, such, nevertheless, does not mean that petitioner’s property is therefore immune

Simms v. State

49 Md. App. 515 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 2, 1981

Only where the pretrial publicity in and of itself is so passive and widespread that it is clearly prejudicial, or where the publicity is so inherently prejudicial that it "saturated the community” is the remedial step of … (b) Immunity of law enforcement officer from civil liability. — Any law enforcement officer responding to such a request shall be immune from civil liability in complying with the request as long as the officer acts in good

San Patricio County Appraisal District v. Gunvor USA LLC

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Jan 8, 2026

An article may be an export and immune from a tax long before or long after it reaches the port. But when the tax is on activities connected with the export or import the range of immunity cannot be so wide.”)). … Instead, “[a]bandoning the original package doctrine ‘brought import tax immunity into alignment with export tax immunity’” in that it eliminated a “loophole” which had shielded imported goods from taxation.

Atlantic Specialty Insurance Company v. Nancy Lewis

341 Ga. App. 838 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Jun 20, 2017

immunity in a lesser amount by operation of law. … The insurer and insured clearly have a contractual interest at stake in a dispute over the terms and coverage of the insurance policy, and such disputes routinely arise before judgment has been entered in the underlying

Evans v. United Services Automobile Ass'n

142 N.C. App. 18 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 6, 2001

The protection given to matters prepared in anticipation of trial, or “work product,” is not a privilege, but a “qualified immunity.” Willis v. Power Co., 291 N.C. 19, 35 , 229 S.E.2d 191, 201 (1976). … Consequently, we do not believe that material prepared in the course of the investigatory process is normally entitled to the Rule 26 qualified work product immunity.

Mullins v. State

378 So. 2d 503 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Dec 6, 1979

Clearly the Office of Coroner cannot be within the Executive branch of our state government. *506 The Office of Parish Coroner is an elected office which was constitutionally created by Art. 5 § 29 of the Constitution of … Louisiana Architect Selection Board, 362 So.2d 498 (La.1978), the Supreme Court held that the State and its agencies are not immune from the payment of court costs. In Hopkins v.

Hanninen v. Koch

868 N.E.2d 1137 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 22, 2007

She has not established that the QSO statute violates Article 1, Section 12 of the Indiana Constitution. B. … The motion must be accompanied by an affidavit of the offeror or the offeror’s attorney establishing the amount of the attorney’s fees and other costs and expenses incurred by the offeror after the date of the qualified settlement

Olson v. Lesch

931 N.W.2d 832 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Jul 1, 2019

From caselaw, a spectrum has emerged ranging from acts clearly warranting immunity to those falling outside the scope of protection. … But our conclusion that Lesch's letter is not a legislative act does not change or dilute the immunity offered to legislators performing their official duties; it merely confirms in Minnesota established federal law: that

Padilla v. Ymca of Sandusky County

78 Ohio App. 3d 676 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 13, 1992

The only evidence before this court establishes that the Sandusky County Park District operated the swimming area of White State Park, a function for which a political subdivision is immune from suit under R.C. 2744.01(C) … Instead, it is clear that the Supreme Court of Ohio clearly regards Section 16, Article I of the Ohio Constitution as permitting the legislature to limit the liability of government.

Jonathan Daniel Rushing v. State of Texas

Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco) · Jul 11, 2001

conclusively establishes an affirmative defense. See U.S. … is established under section 101.021, a governmental unit may nonetheless retain its immunity if it meets the requisites of section 101.055 or section 101.062. See Gipson v.

Oliver v. MAGNOLIA CLINIC

9 La.App. 3 Cir. 439 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Aug 31, 2011

Additionally, in some cases, “a Plaintiffs right to recover damages at all is barred by legislative grants of immunity from suit.” See La. R.S. 9:2795. … This burden, as was clearly set forth in Sibley, rests with the State.

Devin Woods v. Carl Ware

471 S.W.3d 385 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Sep 29, 2015

The record established that Woods was a former student at Grandview Middle School and a former member of the Grandview Middle School wrestling team. … "[A] 'departmentally-mandated duty' may clearly arise from sources other than statutes or regulations.

Amber Cervantes v. City of Corpus Christi

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Jun 18, 2025

The City filed a plea to the jurisdiction arguing that it retained immunity from suit because Cervantes had failed to establish a causal nexus between the officers’ conduct and her alleged injuries, because the officers … Political subdivisions are entitled to governmental immunity unless it 10 has been clearly and unambiguously waived by the Legislature. Reata Const. Corp. v.

People v. Collins

288 A.D.2d 756 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 29, 2001

The transcript of the colloquy between defendant and the court clearly reflects, inter alia, that defendant was advised of the nature of the charges against him and his right to an attorney, and that he declined assistance … 190.52 [1]) and executed a valid waiver of immunity (CPL 190.40 [2] [a]; 190.45 *758 [1], [2]), which was submitted to the Grand Jury (CPL 190.50 [5] [b]).

People of Michigan v. Jeffrey Gene Miller

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 29, 2015

Thus, § 4 immunity is not extended to “a registered qualifying patient who transfers marijuana to another registered qualifying patient for the transferee’s use . . . .” Id. … Additionally, a primary caregiver asserting § 4 immunity must be “connected” to his or her patients through the state’s registration process in order to qualify for § 4 immunity. Id.