Case law

TXU Energy Retail Company L.L.C. v. Fort Bend Independent School District

472 S.W.3d 462 · Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas) · Aug 26, 2015

We will generally refer to the alleged immunity in this case as governmental immunity. … We therefore decline TXU’s invitation to establish a waiver-by-conduct exception here. See City of McKinney v. Hank’s Rest. Grp., L.P., 412 S.W.3d 102, 114 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013, no pet.)

Grabler v. Allen

109 P.3d 1047 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Feb 10, 2005

The GIA establishes sovereign immunity for all public entities and public employees for all actions that lie in tort or could lie in tort, except as specifically provided under the GIA. Section 24-10-106, C.R.S.2004. … The burden of proving jurisdiction is on the plaintiff, and the trial court’s findings of fact supporting, a determination under the GIA will not be reversed unless clearly erroneous.

Larsen v. Wisconsin Power & Light Co.

120 Wis. 2d 508 · Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · Aug 23, 1984

The obligation of the utility to make a safety inspection, however, is clearly stated in sec. PSC 134.10(3). … Their immunity, however, precludes judgment against them. Respondent’s Cross-Appeal The respondents raise two issues. The respondents ask for preverdict interest despite established precedent to the contrary.

Loeb v. County of San Diego

California Court of Appeal · Dec 16, 2019

Loeb argued immunity arose only if the County established the pathway "was designed and used for [a] recreational purpose." (Italics added.) … Based on that clarification, the trial court granted the motion to exclude Loeb's expert, noting that for purposes of immunity, the "case law clearly says it doesn't matter if [a pathway is] paved or not."

Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith v. Superior Court

79 Cal. Rptr. 2d 597 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 16, 1998

Mitchell clearly does not provide journalists an absolute immunity. … The intrusion cause of action, by contrast, was held not to carry any special immunity or privilege for the press.

Mikkelsen v. State of California

59 Cal. App. 3d 621 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 29, 1976

“(b) The liability of a public entity established by this part (commencing with Section 814) is subject to any immunity of the public entity provided by statute, including this part, and is subject to any defenses that would … In O’Hagan the court stated (38 Cal.App.3d at pp. 728-729): “While it is clear from the language of the Tort Claims Act that its liabilities are subject to immunities established by statute whether inside or outside the act

Zachel v. Mahaney

6 Ohio App. Unrep. 201 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 13, 1990

To qualify for recreational-user immunity, property need not be completely natural, but its essential character should fit within the intent of the statute "Generally speaking, recreational premises include elements such … For example, we recognize immunity to the owner of a park (which qualifies as recreational premises), whether the injury is to one who is jogging in the park, tinkering with a model airplane or reading poetry to satisfy a

Salvi v. Village of Lake Zurich

2016 IL App (2d) 150249 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 18, 2017

Counts I, II, and III all allege trespass (willful and wanton in count I, negligent in counts II and III), which is clearly a tort applicable to private parties. … According to the Village, plaintiff’s complaint “clearly alleges that it was a heavy rain that ultimately caused the water to overflow into the pond.”

Carol Ann Milner v. City of Leander Axia Services, Inc. And Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental RiskPool

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Mar 23, 2000

Whistleblower Act, for which immunity had clearly been waived. … it provided that plaintiffs had to elect as between the Anti-Retaliation Law and the Whistleblower Act, for which immunity had clearly been waived.

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.

Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Shirk

143 Pa. Commw. 422 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 13, 1991

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 movant clearly establishes entitlement to judgment … Exceptions to governmental immunity (a) Liability imposed.

Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel v. Cunha

Connecticut Appellate Court · Jun 16, 2026

The petitioner argued that, although the liti- gation privilege affords immunity for statements made during grievance proceedings, that immunity applies only to retaliatory lawsuits, not disciplinary proceed- ings stemming … The burden is on the [S]tatewide [G]rievance [C]ommittee to establish the occurrence of an ethics violation by clear and convincing proof. . . .

Duplantier v. Krewe of Pygmalion

2007 La.App. 4 Cir. 1034 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Dec 3, 2008

“[A] ‘compensated employee of such krewe or organization’ is excepted from this statutory immunity even if he would otherwise qualify.” Daniel v. … As the moving party on the motion for summary judgment, Pygmalion bore the burden to prove that the Duplantiers would not be able to establish vicarious liability. Mr.

Elizabeth Butala v. The Curators of The University of Missouri

Missouri Court of Appeals · Mar 24, 2020

, fails to qualify as a “judgment” pursuant to section 512.020(5),1 1 All statutory references are to the REVISED STATUTES OF MISSOURI 2016, as supplemented. … section 512.020(5), which provides, in relevant part: Any party to a suit aggrieved by any judgment of any trial court in any civil cause from which an appeal is not prohibited by the constitution, nor clearly

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.

Benjamin v. City of Norwalk

170 Conn. App. 1 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Dec 27, 2016

‘‘Our review of the factual findings of the trial court is limited to a determination of whether they are clearly erroneous. . . . … The clear intent of the motion was for the council to accept the highways in Shorefront Park as depicted on the subdivision map without qualifi- cation, clarification, or limitation.

State Ex Rel. Badami v. Gaertner

630 S.W.2d 175 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jan 19, 1982

The latter motion was based upon immunity under the workmen’s compensation law. … The employer on the other hand received immunity from general tort liability and damages and received an established basis for determining the extent of its monetary liability.

Aurora National Bank v. Anderson

132 Ill. App. 2d 217 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 29, 1971

It said, at p. 59: “In our opinion, the law of Illinois clearly applies in this case. … That state has the primary responsibility for establishing and regulating the incidents of the family relationship and it is the only state in which the parties can, by participation in the legislative processes, effect a

Barr v. Barr

418 N.J. Super. 18 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 19, 2011

See Pacifico, supra, 190 N.J. at 269 , 920 A. 2d 73 (reiterating that "the burden of establishing immunity from distribution of a particular marital asset or portion of an asset rests upon the spouse who asserts it"). *888 … The regular increases attributable solely to longevity are not immune when a distribution is deferred.

Randolph v. Beer

695 So. 2d 401 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · May 9, 1997

The trial court granted the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the ground that it had erred in failing to instruct the jury that Beer and CFEFCU were entitled to the protection of qualified immunity as a matter … Once a defendant has demonstrated that the defamatory statement is protected by a qualified privilege, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish that the privilege was lost through malice or improper purpose.