Case law

People of Michigan v. Dana Lynn Cook

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 22, 2018

Section 4 provides qualifying patients who hold registry cards “broad immunity from criminal prosecution, civil penalties, and disciplinary actions[.]” Kolanek, 491 Mich at 394-395. … That is precisely what is accomplished by Section 4 of the MMMA, as it provides absolute immunity from prosecution to those individuals that can establish the required elements of the statute.

Bradley v. Board of County Commissioners

20 Kan. App. 2d 602 · Court of Appeals of Kansas · Mar 3, 1995

Even if 75-6104(j) does not provide immunity to defendants, Bradley’s claims would also fail on grounds that she has not established the existence of any duty on the part of defendants to warn her of the approaching storm … Here, Bradley has failed to establish the existence of any factors that might distinguish the facts in Griffin from those here.

Stone v. Wyckoff

102 N.J. Super. 26 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 16, 1968

By then all the registered signatories would be qualified to vote. By "qualified" the statute as a matter of good sense must be deemed to mean registered, and qualified by the time the election will have been held. … The specific causes for removal given in the instant petitions are clearly adequate. Ibid.

Hudson v. Windholz

202 Ga. App. 882 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Feb 18, 1992

The doctrine of judgmental immunity prevents the plaintiffs from establishing that defendant’s recommendation to execute the release in favor of Gallery was a negligent act. In Woodruff v. … Because the evidence of record clearly indicates that defendant assessed the relative strengths and weaknesses of the plaintiffs’ claims against both Gallery and Mr.

Sagamore Group, Inc. v. Commissioner of Transportation

29 Conn. App. 292 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Sep 22, 1992

I “ ‘It is well established law that the state is immune from suit unless it consents to be sued by appropriate legislation waiving sovereign immunity in certain prescribed cases’; Duguay v. … “It is well established that statutes in derogation of the state’s immunity from suit should be strictly construed so that the state’s sovereignty may not be undermined. Berger, Lehman Associates, Inc. v.

Envirologix Corp. v. City of Waukesha

192 Wis. 2d 277 · Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · Mar 1, 1995

This statute clearly immunizes a governmental entity from two categories of behavior by its representatives: (1) intentional torts; and (2) legislative, quasi-legislative, judicial or quasi-judicial actions. … To the extent that Envirologix alleges intentional tort conduct as the basis for its action against the City, the statute clearly immunizes the City.

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.

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.

Deaver v. Bridges

47 S.W.3d 549 · Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · Feb 20, 2001

On appeal, Deaver challenges only the court’s denial of statutory immunity. … Bridges asserts the settlement agreement clearly delineated Deaver’s responsibilities, leaving no discretion on his part in carrying out the terms of the agreement.

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

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.

Martinez, Arthur, Alice and Alice as Next Friend of Marty Martinez v. City of Lubbock

Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo) · Jul 3, 1996

to an immunity defense. … In addition, § 6-122(11) of the Lubbock Electrical Code establishes that the inspector/building official "or his designated representative, qualified in electrical code inspections . . . shall have the duty of inspecting

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.

Diaz v. Canutillo Independent School District

311 S.W.3d 588 · Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso) · Feb 3, 2010

Thus, CISD is immune from suit unless the Tort Claims Act expressly waives immunity. … Employers is clearly distinguishable because it did not involve the Tort Claims Act.

Cornell v. City and County of San Francisco

California Court of Appeal · Nov 16, 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

Sarmiento v. City of Corpus Christi

465 S.W.2d 813 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Mar 25, 1971

Therefore, at the time of the occurrence, the City of Corpus Christi was charged by law with the control and direction of traffic at this intersection, clearly a governmental function. … We do not believe it a part of our function to undertake to change a rule so long established by our Supreme Court. Meska v. City of Dallas, supra; Mayes v.

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.

Texas Logos, L.P. v. Texas Department of Transportation

241 S.W.3d 105 · Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Aug 30, 2007

City of Mexia, 197 S.W.3d 325, 331-32 (Tex.2006) (sovereign immunity “remains firmly established, and as it has come to be applied to the various governmental entities in this State, an important purpose is pragmatic: to … An otherwise-proper declaratory claim alleging statutory violations may nonetheless have the effect of establishing a right to a remedy that is barred by sovereign immunity.

Halper v. State

36 Ohio App. 331 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 14, 1930

Up to this point we find that the language is merely descriptive; that the dates above mentioned do not have any application to anything excepting to a dealer under 5526 GC, and it in no way establishes the date of the commission … offense has been charged in the .affidavit under the section of the statute named and that therefore the conviction is unlawful and inasmuch as the cause of reversal is based upon this reason the plaintiff in error is not immune