Case law

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

Richland County v. Carolina Chloride, Inc.

382 S.C. 634 · Court of Appeals of South Carolina · May 28, 2009

Carolina Chloride argues Brown qualified as an officer, director, or managing agent under Rule 32(a)(2), SCRCP. … Carolina Chloride did not lay any foundation as to why Brown’s role on the Board qualifies under Rule 32(a)(2).

Williams v. City of New York

129 A.D.3d 1066 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 24, 2015

“If found to be objectively reasonable, the officer’s actions are privileged under the doctrine of qualified immunity” (Lepore v Town of Greenburgh, 120 AD3d at 1203 ; see Holland v City of Poughkeepsie, 90 AD3d at 844 ; … Here, the officers’ deposition testimony established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the first cause of action, which was predicated upon an alleged use of excessive force, insofar

Cernosek Enterprises, Inc. CJN Investments, Inc. And Anthony Cernosek v. City of Mont Belvieu Enterprise Products Operating, LLC Mont Belvieu Caverns, LLC And Enterprise Texas Pipeline, Inc.

Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Mar 10, 2011

While a plea to the jurisdiction is a procedural means for a political subdivision to contest jurisdiction, the party suing the governmental entity has the burden to establish consent to be sued. Id. … Therefore, Hill Lumber has failed to establish that it has standing to pursue a claim against Enterprise under the language of these ordinances. See Everett , 178 S.W.3d at 850 .

Ohdan v. City of New York

268 A.D.2d 86 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 27, 2000

Such unprofessional behavior clearly does not fall within the range of discretionary decisions immunized by public policy. … Immunity will not cloak the actions of an officer who “affirmatively intervened in a dangerous situation and negligently caused injury to a bystander, by acts which deviated from clearly accepted and established protocols

Sammy Tawakkol v. Sheila Vasquez, in Her Official Capacity as Manager of the Texas Department of Public Safety- Sex Offender Registration Bureau; And Freeman F. Martin, in His Official Capacity as Director of the Texas Department of Public Safety

Texas Court of Appeals, 15th District · May 6, 2025

City of Houston, 487 S.W.3d 154, 158 (Tex. 2016). 19 federal sovereign immunity does not necessarily establish that Plaintiff’s state-law claims are also barred by Texas’ sovereign … immunity doctrine.

Chavez v. Glock, Inc.

207 Cal. App. 4th 1283 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 24, 2012

Examining these factors, Clock and Revolver Club contend undisputed evidence establishes the benefits of the Clock 21’s 5.5-pound trigger connector and absence of a manual or grip safety to law enforcement officers clearly … Lord’s education, experience and training clearly qualified him for and encompassed such testing.

Cordova v. Pueblo West Metropolitan District

986 P.2d 976 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Sep 7, 1999

Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court erred in holding that the plaintiffs had met their burden of establishing that their claim against the District fell within a statutory exception to the immunity granted by the … Its findings will not be disturbed unless they are clearly erroneous. Swi eckowski v. City of Fort Collins, supra; Fogg v. Macaluso, supra.

Bynum v. Wilson County

228 N.C. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 18, 2013

given that the operation of the register of deeds office “is clearly a governmental function for which the county enjoys immunity from suit for negligence.” … According to well-established North Carolina law, a business owner is liable for the negligent maintenance of buildings in which customers may pay their bills. 4 For example, in Lamm v.

Adkins v. Furey

2 S.W.3d 346 · Court of Appeals of Texas · May 19, 1999

This is clearly another issue for the jury to decide. C. … We do not think that his employment, for purposes of immunity, could be established on the basis of an allegation in the plaintiffs’ previous pleadings when UTHSC denied Adkins was its employee.

Paul E. v. Courtney F.

418 P.3d 413 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Apr 3, 2018

We also need not address Father's contention that § 25-405(B) requires appointment of a professional who qualifies as an expert under Ariz. R. Evid. 702 and 706. … Section 25-405(B) nowhere requires that the appointed professional qualify as an expert within the meaning of the rules of evidence. See Reilly v.

D.L., Glen Black, Ann Black, Steven Lucas, and K.L., by her Next Friend, D.L. v. Christine Huck, Laura Zimmerman, Angela Smith Grossman, Rhonda Friend, Angyl McClaine, and Indiana Dept. of Child Svcs.

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 17, 2012

All of the actions complained of by the Family were only indirectly, at best, related to any court order or instruction, and were not sufficiently intertwined with the judicial process to qualify for quasi-judicial immunity … To establish standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate a personal stake in the outcome of the lawsuit and that the injury is a result of the defendant’s conduct. Id. at 339-40.

Hinnigan v. State

94 A.D.2d 830 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 5, 1983

The only obligation of the State under the statute was to lend technical assistance to towns and to issue regulations to qualify a town for the program. … We conclude that none has been established (Schuster v City of New York, 5 NY2d 75 ). The town was not under any obligation to comply with the Federal insurance program.

Kleven v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division

35 S.W.3d 112 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Nov 29, 2000

In its Motion to Dismiss, TDCJ contended that it is immune from Eleven’s suit under the doctrine of sovereign immunity and that its immunity has not been waived under the Texas Tort Claims Act. … In Lehmann , the court of appeals held that Mafrige established a bright line rule making a judgment containing Mother Hubbard language a final judgment for purposes of appeal. Id. at 417.

State v. Carlin

423 N.W.2d 741 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · May 24, 1988

The state’s burden of clearly establishing that the trial court’s ruling was erroneous under the Webber standard was recently clarified and reaffirmed in State v. Joon Kyu Kim, 398 N.W.2d 544 (Minn.1987). … In Joon Kyu Kim , the supreme court held that the state had not met its burden of establishing clearly and unequivocally that the trial court’s order suppressing statistical population frequency in a rape prosecution was

People v. Windus

165 Cal. App. 4th 634 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 30, 2008

Eidleman’s recommendation was more than three years old, it “had clearly expired.” … Galambos (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1147, 1152 [ 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 844 ] [“We also reject defendant’s claim that the limited immunity afforded under Proposition 215 to patients and primary caregivers should be extended to those

Subpoena Duces Tecum to Stearns v. Zulka

489 N.E.2d 146 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 26, 1986

That is, are the photographs sought by Zulka clearly material and relevant to the defense of the underlying action; is there a compelling need for them in the sense that they are critical to the fair determination of the … Newspapers, television and radio stations-Press Associations-Employees and representatives-Immunity.

Smith v. MD

130 Cal. Rptr. 2d 315 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 23, 2003

With respect to permissive reporters, section 11172, subdivision (a) grants only qualified immunity. … As such they are entitled to qualified, rather than absolute, immunity. (§ 11172, subd. (a).)

Foshee v. LOUISIANA FARM BUREAU CAS. INS.

948 So. 2d 1171 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jan 31, 2007

Foshee, we conclude that the plaintiff has not established factual *1178 support sufficient to establish his evidentiary burden at trial. … Clearly then, both parties agree that Mr. Bates' conduct was not "deliberate and wanton" as required by the statute. Nor is there evidence that his conduct constituted gross negligence.

In re Cullinan

3 Liquor Tax Rep. 127 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 15, 1903

in what manner and under what circumstances it may be revoked, and while it is equally true that the holder takes it subject to the provisions of law attached to it in that *129 respect, these facts must be deemed to be qualified … In any proceeding by the State to deprive him of the one or the other, the facts which in law justify it must be alleged and established.