Case law

Higby Development, LLC v. Sartor

954 A.2d 77 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 14, 2008

to establish that Ledbetter’s conduct fell outside the protection of the Tort Claims Act. … However, a limited exception to this Rule has been created allowing the raising of the affirmative defense of governmental immunity as a preliminary objection when it is clearly applicable on the face of the complaint and

Sudul v. City of Hamtramck

221 Mich. App. 455 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 29, 1997

Sudul's claims for assault and battery were made against the individual police officer defendants, who have qualified immunity pursuant to M.C.L. § 691.1407; M.S.A. § 3.996(107), which provides in relevant part: (1) Except … The federal circuit courts disagree whether qualified immunity is available as a matter of law as a defense against a claim of excessive force. See Alexander v.

Finn v. Rendell

990 A.2d 100 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 9, 2010

Section 3575(a) established within the State Treasury a restricted account to be known as “the criminal justice enhancement account.” … absolute immunity pursuant to 1 Pa.C.S. § 2310.”

Hemak v. Houston County School District

220 Ga. App. 110 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Jan 23, 1996

While official immunity does not apply to purely ministerial duties required by law, public officials are immune from individual liability for discretionary acts undertaken in the course of their duties and without wilfulness … The scope of this official immunity was clearly established in Hennessy v. Webb, 245 Ga. 329 ( 264 SE2d 878 ) (1980), and Holloway v. Dougherty County School System, 157 Ga. App. 251, 252-253 ( 277 SE2d 251 ) (1981).

Fleming Companies, Inc. v. Moreira

690 So. 2d 1367 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Apr 2, 1997

The court also established that where the association between the employee and the special employer is in doubt, the actual employment relationship, and not the subjective intent of the parties, is controlling. … Here, Regency is in the business of supplying temporary help and provided workers' compensation coverage, thereby clearly falling under the terminology of Section 440.11(2). See Sagarino v.

Kelsey v. Catena

2023 NY Slip Op 03394 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 22, 2023

Ultimately, plaintiff bore the burden of establishing that jurisdiction was acquired ( see Cedar Run Homeowners' Assn., Inc. v Adirondack Dev. … As to the posttrial proceedings, CPL 440.10 (1) clearly provides that the authority to vacate a judgment is provided to "the court in which it was entered."

Maguire Oil Company v. City of Houston

Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana) · Feb 15, 2002

A city is immune from liability for its governmental actions unless that immunity is waived. City of LaPorte v. Barfield , 898 S.W.2d 288, 291 (Tex. 1995). … The City contends Rosenthal is not a common-law exception to sovereign immunity because Rosenthal did not involve sovereign immunity.

Bollinger v. Schneider

64 Ill. App. 3d 758 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 16, 1978

Sections 4 — 102 and 4 — 103 provide respectively: “Neither a local public entity nor a public employee is liable for the failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service or, if police … Section 4 — 103 involves detentional facilities and the language of that section, as previously set forth, clearly indicates its applicability to the present facts.

Moore v. City of Detroit

128 Mich. App. 491 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 23, 1983

Except as otherwise provided herein, this act shall not be construed as modifying or restricting the immunity of the state from tort liability as it existed heretofore, which immunity is affirmed.” … immunity.

Gardner v. Rosecliff Realty Co.

41 N.J. Super. 1 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 9, 1956

a defense clearly does not bar a subsequent litigation by the same plaintiffs against the principal. … The question whether or not Rosenthal knowingly *9 and intentionally made the misrepresentation of fact, above stated, was clearly a matter to be determined by the jury.

Resolution Trust Corp. v. Lanzaro

271 N.J. Super. 425 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 28, 1992

The Corporation is immune from taxes other than ad valorem real property taxes. … Just as clearly, however, the statutory fee allowed to the sheriff is not a direct tax on anyone’s capital, including that of the RTC.

Grace Memorial Baptist Church A/K/A Grace Baptist Church N/K/A Church of the Lord Jesus Christ v. Harris County, on Behalf of Itself and on Behalf of the Harris County Education Department, the Port of Houston Authority of Harris County, HCFCD, HCHD City of Houston HISD, Harris County Education District And Houston Community College System

Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · Aug 28, 2008

Issues Presented The precise issues the Church presents on appeal are not clearly enumerated in its brief. … The Church = s Claim of A Tax Immunity @ Our resolution of the Church = s claim of A tax immunity @ turns on the difference between the procedures established by statute for collecting delinquent taxes and for obtaining tax

Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, Texas v. MEB Engineering, Inc.

Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Jul 15, 2004

Express consent is required to show that immunity from suit has been waived. Fed. Sign , 951 S.W.2d at 408. A party may establish consent to suit by statute or legislative resolution. Little-Tex , 39 S.W.3d at 594 . … Accordingly, we hold that section 451.054 of the Transportation Code clearly and unambiguously waives METRO’s immunity from suit.

Sanchez v. Department of Human Services

314 N.J. Super. 11 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 8, 1998

It has been variously assigned to the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Art. TV, to the Commerce Clause, and to the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. … qualified bona fide residents.

City of El Paso v. Joseph C. Pickett

Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso) · Dec 28, 2022

“Consequently, sovereign immunity will bar an otherwise proper [U]DJA claim that has the effect of establishing a right to relief against the State for which the Legislature has not waived sovereign immunity.” … The UDJA clearly and unambiguously waives the governmental immunity of municipalities in any action for declaratory judgment that involves the validity of a municipal ordinance. See id.

Kavanaugh v. Midwest Club, Inc.

164 Ill. App. 3d 213 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 18, 1987

The trial court found that no duty to plaintiff’s decedent was owed by Midwest Club and that the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Tort Immunity Act) (Ill. … A cause of action should not be dismissed unless it clearly appears from the pleadings that no set of facts can be proved which will entitle plaintiff to recover. Charles Hester Enterprises, Inc. v.

San Antonio Water System, an Agency of the City of San Antonio v. Matiraan, Ltd., and Marylyn House

Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · Mar 1, 2023

A plaintiff also bears the burden of establishing a waiver of governmental immunity in suits against the government. Id. … City of San Antonio, 489 S.W.3d 448, 451–52 (Tex. 2016) (parties must only establish waiver of immunity if immunity applies).

Wisniewski v. Town of Darien

135 Conn. App. 364 · Connecticut Appellate Court · May 8, 2012

“General Statutes § 52-557n abandons the common-law principle of municipal sovereign immunity and establishes the circumstances in which a municipality may be liable for damages. . . . … them the protection of governmental immunity.

the City of Cleveland, Niki Coats, in His Official Capacity as Mayor of the City of Cleveland and Angela Smith, in Her Official Capacity as City Secretary of the City of Cleveland v. Keep Cleveland Safe

500 S.W.3d 438 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jul 28, 2016

Similarly, in Couchman, the court discussed the impropriety of enjoining a legislative body from enacting ordinances: As before stated, the record clearly establishes that the ordinance has not been finally … It is well settled . . . that the enactment of a void ordinance will not be enjoined, although its invalidity clearly appears, unless it also clearly appears that the mere enactment of the ordinance of itself

Armstrong v. Ypsilanti Charter Township

248 Mich. App. 573 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 25, 2002

These defendants are clearly the highest elective officials in the township and are immune if they were acting within their authority when they eliminated plaintiffs position. ... … On these facts, the Attorney General clearly is “immune from tort liability” because he was “acting within the scope of [his] executive authority.”