Case law

Hupf v. City of Appleton

165 Wis. 2d 215 · Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · Oct 22, 1991

In pursuit of summary judgment, the moving party has the burden to establish the absence of a genuine issue as to any material fact. Id. … We therefore require that the contract clearly express the intent of the parties so that with the surrounding circumstances, it is clear the parties knowingly agreed to excuse the otherwise responsible party. Id.

Snyder, Admx. v. Mouser

149 Ind. App. 334 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 7, 1971

It clearly proscribes personal liability (except to the state or county) for any official act omitted. The statute comes to us without challenge as to its validity, 1 and we accept it at its face value. … However, in view of the formidable pre'cedent established by the foregoing authorities, which have established a uniform rule of governmental immunity from all tort liability with respect to all involuntary units of government

City of San Antonio v. Texas Mutual Insurance Company as Subrogee of Fernando Hernandez

Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · Jan 14, 2009

The City’s knowledge that deteriorating conditions below the surface might at some time in the future result in a sinkhole is insufficient to establish waiver of immunity. See id. … The law clearly requires the sinkhole to have developed and the City to be aware of its existence.

v. Ireson

490 P.3d 963 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Nov 5, 2020

Begley I established that the litigation privilege may immunize an attorney’s prelitigation statement if (1) the statement is related to prospective litigation and (2) the prospective litigation is contemplated in good … In concluding that a qualified litigation privilege may apply, the court did not mention defamation. Id. at 1118.

Dorsey v. Coastal Tank Lines, Inc.

50 Del. 437 · Superior Court of Delaware · Jun 24, 1957

The plaintiffs further contend that the specific statutory language involved is clearly broad enough to permit the case to go to trial. … The validity of legislative acts which depart from established patterns of govern *442 mental organization has been consistently upheld. State ex rel. Craven v. Schorr, Del. 1957, 131 A. 2d 158 .

County of El Paso v. Dorado

180 S.W.3d 854 · Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso) · Jan 11, 2006

Appellant filed a second interlocutory appeal raising a question regarding qualified immunity of the nurses, which was denied. 2 In May of 2003, trial was had to a jury on allegations of the violation of the constitutional … Actions and decisions by officials that are merely inept, erroneous, ineffective, or negligent do not amount to deliberate indifference and do not divest officials of qualified immunity. Id.

Brucato v. Edgar

128 Ill. App. 3d 260 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 26, 1984

XIII, sec. 4) the doctrine of sovereign immunity was abolished, the legislature, acting under its constitutional authority, partially reinstated the doctrine by passing section 1 of “An Act in relation to immunity for the … Plaintiff asserts, however, that the immunity statute is inapplicable here, arguing in substance that (a) the action is not one against the State; (b) even if it were, the State waived immunity by entering into the disputed

Perry v. State

84 Okla. Crim. 211 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · May 14, 1947

Clifford, immunity is granted under Artcile 2, Section 27, of the Oklahoma Constitution. … If there had been no right of silence, there would be no necessity for granting immunity.

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.

City of Dallas v. VRC LLC

260 S.W.3d 60 · Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas) · Aug 19, 2008

Here, the undisputed evidence establishes VRC could not plead a valid regulatory takings claim. … “Sovereign immunity” refers to the State's immunity from suit and liability, and it protects the State and its subdivisions.

the United Healthcare Choice Plus Plan for City of Austin Employees and the City of Austin v. Charles Lesniak

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Jul 15, 2015

Here, there is no dispute that the City of Austin is a qualifying local governmental entity under the statute. … The Plan meets the test of the statute and falls under the waiver of immunity established by the Legislature.

Polzer v. TRW, Inc.

256 A.D.2d 248 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 29, 1998

of summary judgment to defendants BNY and Mobil was not procedurally inappropriate since those defendants either moved for or requested such relief, and all parties, in submitting documents in support of their arguments, clearly … In dismissing plaintiffs’ statutory claims, the motion court also properly determined that the acts or omissions that are alleged to have violated General Business Law § 349 were protected by the qualified immunity granted

Addison v. Employers Mut. Liability Ins. Co. of Wis.

64 So. 2d 484 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Mar 19, 1953

The fallacy of plaintiff's argument is clearly shown by a decision of the Orleans Court of Appeal in the case of Mock v. … was personal and of which immunity the insurer could not take advantage.

Donath v. Village of Plainfield

2020 IL App (3d) 190762 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 6, 2020

Clearly, our legislature recognized, without affording immunity to local public entities, “public property intended or permitted to be used for recreational purposes” could suffer or become less available … The record also establishes that Fox River Street itself has never been used for recreation.

Department of Transportation v. Blue

147 N.C. App. 596 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 18, 2001

Nevertheless, NCDOT asserts the defense of sovereign immunity. “Sovereign immunity is a theory or defense established to protect a sovereign or state as well as its officials and agents from suit in certain instances.” … Under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, “[t]he State of North Carolina is immune from suit unless and until it expressly consents to be sued.” State v. Taylor, 322 N.C. 433, 435 , 368 S.E.2d 601, 602 (1988).

Kirk v. City of Shawnee

27 Kan. App. 2d 946 · Court of Appeals of Kansas · Aug 11, 2000

In order to establish liability for negligence against any defendant, including a governmental entity, the plaintiff must establish: (I) the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff; (2) that duty was breached; (3) the breach … If a special relationship did not exist in Schmidt , it clearly could not exist in this case.

Faircloth v. Family Independence Agency

232 Mich. App. 391 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 3, 1999

(e) A person diagnosed as having acquired immune-deficiency syndrome or acquired immune-deficiency syndrome related complex. … This policy clearly affected the status quo, and those affected by it should have been given an opportunity to be heard.

Price v. Austintown Local School District Board of Education

178 Ohio App. 3d 256 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 5, 2008

The first tier determines whether the defendant falls within the terms of the general immunity established by R.C. 2744.02(A)(1). … The fifth exception to immunity involves liability imposed on a political subdivision by a specific statute and this clearly does not apply in the instant case.

Mannella ex rel. Mannella v. Port Authority of Allegheny County

982 A.2d 130 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 6, 2009

Port Authority of Allegheny County, 524 Pa. 1 , 568 A.2d 931 (1990), the General Assembly created exceptions to that immunity when it enacted what is commonly know as the Sovereign Immunity Act. 3 Section 8522 of the Judicial … Summary judgment is only appropriate when, after examining the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party clearly establishes that he is entitled

Cremonte v. Michigan State Police

232 Mich. App. 240 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 8, 1999

The trial court compounded its error by asking defendant to establish the nature and extent of any prejudice, when the court rule clearly places that burden entirely on the party requesting amendment, in this case, plaintiff … Gone are the days of promoting the most qualified person for that position.