Case law

McCord v. Memorial Medical Center Hospital

750 S.W.2d 362 · Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · May 5, 1988

This affidavit is sufficient to establish that MMC is a political subdivision of the state of Texas. Tex.R.Civ.P. 166a. … The Tort Claims Act clearly prohibits governmental liability for intentional torts. Townsend, 529 S.W.2d at 267 .

Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. Hussey

138 Pa. Commw. 436 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 12, 1991

In more general language applicable to the case sub judice, the Supreme Court stated: *441 We believe the Legislature has clearly precluded the imposition of liability on itself or its local agencies for acts of third parties … Although a review of the record indicates that Hussey’s contention may not be entirely correct, it has been established that governmental immunity cannot be waived. Tax Claim Unit of Northampton County v.

City of Wylie v. Taylor

362 S.W.3d 855 · Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas) · Mar 22, 2012

Unless the TTCA clearly and unambiguously waives immunity, a municipality maintains its immunity from suit and from tort liability for its own acts or the acts of its agents for its governmental functions. See Gipson v. … To establish a waiver of immunity, the appellees must show the City “had actual knowledge ‘of the dangerous condition at the time of the accident, not merely of the possibility that a dangerous condition c[ould] develop over

Cassidy v. Abington Township

131 Pa. Commw. 637 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 8, 1990

Hughes was clearly authorized to question Appellant, whom he had probable cause to believe had committed the crimes charged, and the admissibility of evidence secured from the interrogation is not before us. … A motion for summary judgment may properly be granted when the moving party establishes that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id.

Adoption of Keefe

49 Mass. App. Ct. 818 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Aug 10, 2000

The profile evidence was “clearly inadmissible, and, in other circumstances, might be deemed sufficiently prejudicial to require reversal. … Such testimony is less than highly probative, and the judge was not clearly wrong in rejecting that testimony.

Hannay v. Department of Transportation

299 Mich. App. 261 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 17, 2013

However, the GTLA provides that governmental agencies are “immune from tort liability” when “engaged in the exercise or discharge of a governmental function” unless a specific exception to governmental immunity is applicable … Thus, the general purpose of the act was to abolish tort liability for governmental entities, even if a plaintiff is able to establish the elements of a tort claim.

Green v. State

229 N.E.3d 387 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 9, 2023

Green Jr.’s car—accepted as true, do not necessarily establish the elements of first degree murder. … complained-of actions involve matters - 14 - No. 1-22-0245 ordinarily within that employee’s normal and official functions), we agree with the circuit court that it is clearly

Lewis v. Linn

209 Cal. App. 2d 394 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 9, 1962

It is the long established rule, not limited to actions for defamation, that a judge is not to be held answerable in damages for acts performed in his judicial capacity (Oppenheimer v. … that he proposed to file ‘ ‘ a more complete affidavit. ’ ’ Plaintiff contends, however, that the portion of the proceeding dealing with the question of which defendants joined in the affidavit and motion to disqualify was clearly

Twyman v. Twyman

790 S.W.2d 819 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jun 27, 1990

William complains the evidence was insufficient to establish that Sheila’s emotional response rose to the level of mental anguish necessary to prove a negligent infliction of emotional distress claim. … The issue was clearly before the Court in Price .

Ex Parte Elam

6 Cal. App. 233 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 17, 1907

The conditions existing in this state with reference to the necessity for the conservation of irrigating waters are most clearly set out in the case last cited, and the reasons for the rule restricting the use clearly shown … There is no special privilege or immunity granted to the man with the hook and line.

RENAISSANCE HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS, INC. v. Swan

343 S.W.3d 571 · Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont) · Jun 30, 2011

With respect to the report authored by Simpson, appellants argue that because Simpson’s involvement with hospital quality assurance committees ended in 1997, 5 the report does not establish that Simpson was qualified to offer … Simpson’s report and curriculum vitae clearly establish that Simpson is a physician, and appellants do not contend that Simpson does not qualify as an expert under the Texas Rules of Evidence; therefore, we reject appellants

Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool v. City of Hidalgo

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Mar 12, 2020

Only the sovereign’s own consent could qualify the absolute character of that immunity.”) … Waiver of Immunity for Specific Performance On appeal, the Risk Pool contends that the trial court “ignored” the framework established in Zachry and “created” a waiver of immunity beyond the scope of what was intended

Group Health Plan, Inc. v. State Board of Registration for Healing Arts

787 S.W.2d 745 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jan 2, 1990

P.), a corporation and a federally qualified health maintenance organization, with its principal offices in St. … Regarding the individual members of a state agency, absolute immunity is accorded to government officials whose special functions require complete protection from suit, and this immunity defeats a suit at the outset.

Eric McGowen and Vision Logistics, Inc. v. Bradley Montes

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 6, 2020

The General Assembly clearly knew how to specify medical care, including specific medical treatments, in the GSL. … ” [27] Next, Montes argues the scene of the vehicle collision did not qualify as an “objective emergency.” Appellee/Cross-Appellant’s Br. p. 13.

the City of Caldwell, Texas v. Paul Lilly

Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco) · Aug 9, 2012

Immunity from liability protects the State from money judgments even if the Legislature has expressly given consent to sue. Id. A plaintiff who sues the State must establish the State’s consent to suit. Tex. … Second, Lilly does not direct us to any portion of Chapter 101 of the Texas Labor Code that clearly and unambiguously waives the City’s immunity. See TEX. LAB.

Cornell v. City and County of San Francisco

California Court of Appeal · Nov 21, 2017

By then, appellants contend, the jury’s findings establish without doubt that Cornell was in full flight, clearly indicating consciousness of guilt. … (b), the federal standard for qualified immunity that has evolved in the last three decades, which is based on an objective appraisal of whether an officer facing civil suit violated “clearly established” law, and is not

Terri Bradshaw v. Capital Community economic/industrial Development Authority

Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Dec 5, 2025

-44-  The “pure” version of sovereign immunity applies to a narrow set of state entities that qualify for immunity without the need to … These employees must instead rely on the distinct doctrine of “qualified” immunity. Id.

Hill v. State

53 Kan. App. 2d 155 · Court of Appeals of Kansas · Dec 9, 2016

K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 75-6103(a) The State's first argument regarding sovereign immunity is that the plain language of K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 75-6103(a) establishes it has not waived sovereign immunity. … This clearly contravenes Kansas' rule that plaintiff suing for the common-law tort of retaliation must establish that the employer took some negative action because the plaintiff invoked a protected right.

Bates v. King

915 So. 2d 1037 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Nov 2, 2005

Unlike the defendants in Cormier and Burton , the Kings have established them *1042 selves as restauranteurs. … On the record before us, we find that the Kings have clearly demonstrated that they were engaged in the normal course and scope of their employment with Pitt Grill at the time of Ms. Bates’ [¡¡injury.

Burrell, B. v. Streamlight, Inc.

2019 Pa. Super. 335 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 7, 2019

Defendant therefore clearly had the right to direct and control the -8- J-A24037-19 work that Plaintiff was performing when he was injured. … Aerotek-Streamlight Personnel Agreement ¶1(b); Burrell Dep. at 32-38, 42-43.2 Because the undisputed facts established that Defendant was Plaintiff’s employer under the WCA and was therefore immune from tort liability