Case law

Weakley v. City of Dearborn Heights

246 Mich. App. 322 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 23, 2001

The immunity conferred on governmental agencies is broad. Robinson v Detroit, 462 Mich 439, 455 ; 613 NW2d 307 (2000). … No action may be maintained under the highway exception unless it is clearly within the scope and meaning of the statute. Scheurman v Dep’t of Transportation, 434 Mich 619, 630 ; 456 NW2d 66 (1990).

Port Neches-Groves Independent School District v. Pyramid Constructors, L.L.P.

Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont) · Feb 5, 2009

The District argues Pyramid failed to develop a record on remand to establish a waiver of governmental immunity. … For waiver to be implied, "intent must be clearly demonstrated by the surrounding facts and circumstances." Jernigan v. Langley, 111 S.W.3d 153, 156 (Tex. 2003).

Emmerson v. Weilep

126 Wash. App. 930 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 1, 2005

Weilep points out the text of RCW 4.24.510 expressly provides for immunity from “civil liability,” as opposed to immunity from a civil action for damages, its meaning must be construed in the context of the statutory scheme … Here, the legislative purpose gives qualifying parties immunity *937 from “civil action[s] for damages,” (RCW 4.24.500) and the statutory intent language discusses liability in terms of a “civil complaint or counterclaim

Johnson v. County of Los Angeles

143 Cal. App. 3d 298 · California Court of Appeal · May 25, 1983

Sheriffs’ failure to warn Appellants of a clearly foreseeable danger failed to rise to the level of governmental decisions calling for immunization. … established by section 855.8.

Frank Mussemann, M.D., Amy Plummer, M.D. and Daniel Hersh, M.D. v. Mercedes Villarreal, as Next Friend of Juan Pablo Elizondo, a Minor

Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · Aug 25, 2005

To qualify for protection, the discretion exercised need not be A uniquely governmental. @ Kassen , 887 S.W.2d at 12 . … Therefore, the Doctors did not conclusively establish each element of the affirmative defense of official immunity. Accordingly, we overrule the Doctors = first issue. B.

Raul G. Garza v. the City of Houston

Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · Jul 24, 2007

my siren was clearly audible, and that vehicles were properly yielding right of way to me. … After examining the record, we find the City established an exception to the waiver of immunity under the TTCA.

McKenna v. City of Fort Wayne

429 N.E.2d 662 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 30, 1981

State, (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 286 , 95 Cal.Rptr. 665 , establishing a test for immunity under the statute where part (but not all) of a public park has been improved. … Consequently, we hold the City was not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of governmental immunity because the City, at best, established only one-half of the necessary factual predicate — “natural condition of unimproved

Elie v. St. Barnabas Hospital

283 A.D.2d 364 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 31, 2001

However, while “[i]t is well established that in order to state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege (1) that the challenged conduct was attributable at least in part to a person acting under color of state law, … Finally, there is no merit to defendant’s contention that it is entitled to qualified immunity, which ordinarily attaches only when a governmental official is “performing a discretionary function” (Liu v New York City Police

Williams v. Housing Authority

Connecticut Appellate Court · Sep 15, 2015

demonstrate any exception to the statutory immunity. … Failure to establish any of the three prongs is fatal to the plaintiff’s claim that the defendants’ conduct falls within the exception. Id.

Lombardo v. Town of Billerica

3 Mass. L. Rptr. 75 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Dec 5, 1994

If the governmental actor’s actions were prescribed by a statute, regulation or established agency practice, then there is no discretion. … [provides] immunity only for discretionary conduct that involves policy making or planning.” Id. at 141. “[G]overnmental immunity does not result automatically just because the governmental actor had discretion.

Pritza v. Village of Lansing

405 Ill. App. 3d 634 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 24, 2010

The Illinois Supreme Court firmly established that governmental self-insurance pools are not “insurance” as defined in the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (745 ILCS 10/1 — 101 et seq. … The court agreed that, in the case of commercial insurance, “the immunity is waived since government funds are no longer in jeopardy and immunity would inure to the benefit of private investors who have assumed the risk of

McCoy v. Illinois International Port District

Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 30, 2002

McCoy argues that Matthews did not have to be specifically named in the contract to qualify as a third-party beneficiary. … It argues that, to qualify as a third- party beneficiary, the actual parties to the contract must specifically intend that the contract directly benefit the third party in question.

Richardson v. Warren Consolidated School District

197 Mich. App. 697 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 1992

"No action may be maintained under the highway exception unless it is clearly within the scope and meaning of the statute.” … This Court has not extended municipal liability beyond that "clearly within the scope and meaning of the statute.” Scheurman, supra at 630 .

Street v. Superior Court

224 Cal. App. 3d 1397 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 1, 1990

They made evidentiary objections to Chang’s declaration and also questioned its adequacy to establish his good faith, a threshold requirement for applicability of the Good Samaritan statutes. … Although he was neither qualified to perform the test nor directly responsible for her treatment, he had a professional and ethical, not to mention a pecuniary, interest in her care.

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 12, 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.

Vitale v. Reddy

150 Mich. App. 492 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 8, 1986

Reddy should have recognized Michael’s serious condition earlier than she did and should have ordered him to be transferred sooner to a qualified hospital for prompt diagnosis and treatment. … The state is therefore protected by governmental immunity. As to Dr.

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority v. Superior Court

20 Cal. Rptr. 3d 92 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 21, 2004

While there are no cases directly on the issue of public entity immunity from civil penalties under the Unruh Act, there are several instructive decisions which discuss the immunity provided by section 818 in other civil … But even after establishing a case where punitive damages are permissible, he is never entitled to them ....

City of Sunland Park v. Paseo Del Norte Ltd. Partnership

128 N.M. 163 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Sep 3, 1999

PDN contends that the collateral-order doctrine applies to the State’s claim of immunity from condemnation proceedings because the doctrine applies to all official claims of immunity. This contention is incorrect. … The doctrine permits immediate appeals only for claims of qualified immunity by public officials sued for damages in their individual capacities. See Doe v. Leach, 1999-NMCA-117, ¶¶ 9-12 , 128 N.M. 28 , 988 P.2d 1252 .

Brown, Charlene Mills, Individually, Clifton Linwood Brown, Individually and as Legal Representatives of the Estate of Nolan Barrett Brown, and Jeff Farrington, Intervenor v. Texas Department of Transportation and County of Cameron

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Aug 17, 2000

Common sense dictates that Brown's chance of survival would have been substantially greater had his damaged vehicle been clearly visible. … We hold that the evidence establishes a premises defect for which there is a duty to warn or make safe. (2) We therefore conclude sovereign immunity was waived in this case, and that the trial court has jurisdiction over

Burkes v. Stidham

107 Ohio App. 3d 363 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 13, 1995

A qualified privilege is applied to situations of intermediate importance. The immunity is conditioned upon publication in a reasonable manner and for a proper purpose. … Appellants argue that Adrine failed to establish a defense of qualified privilege.