Case law

Vanessa Velez Labrado v. Leith Labrado and Laboe Labrado

Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso) · Oct 31, 2025

has not been met, § 261.106 immunity is unnecessary. … P. 38.1(j) (appellant’s brief must “clearly state[] the nature of the relief sought”), which would be the only relief available for harmful jury charge error. See Glenn v.

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.”

Encalade v. West Jefferson Medical Center Ambulance Service

9 La.App. 5 Cir. 355 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Nov 24, 2009

The court finds that these cases are clearly distinguishable *1118 from the case at bar. … Encalade is not the kind of emergency medical care or medical duty that the legislature sought to immunize from liability under the LMMA.

Canon-McMillan School District v. Bioni

110 Pa. Commw. 584 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 30, 1987

If the verdict is clearly against the weight of the evidence, a new trial is compelled. Id. … These are the criteria established in Pennsylvania. See Justice v. Nesquehoning Valley Railroad Co., 87 Pa. 28 (1878).

State v. Foster

2002 La.App. 1 Cir. 1259 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Feb 14, 2003

While the state introduced various documents at the healing, it did not offer any testimony or affidavits to establish that the state did not gain any prosecutorial advantage from the immunized testimony. … In Kastigar , the United States Supreme Court established a mechanism for insuring that the state does not make direct or indirect use of compelled testimony.

Anselmo v. Target Corp.

340 Or. App. 21 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 23, 2025

of the party’s attorney stating that an unnamed qualified expert has been retained who is available and willing to testify to admissible facts or opinions creating a question of fact will be deemed sufficient … Miller, 196 Or App 354, 358, 103 P3d 112 (2004), rev den, 338 Or 488 (2005) (“The inference need not inevitably follow from the established facts; rather, if the established facts support multiple reasonable infer- ences,

Jospheen Guirguis v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County

Court of Appeals of Tennessee · Sep 5, 2025

Moreover, “excessively forceful or unduly tight handcuffing is a constitutional violation under the Fourth Amendment” and “freedom from excessively forceful or unduly tight handcuffing is a clearly established right.” … This use of deadly force was clearly a seizure that arises under the Fourth Amendment of the -9- United States Constitution.

City of Houston v. Kallinen

516 S.W.3d 617 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Feb 28, 2017

Jensen, 96 S.W.3d 207, 212 (Tex. 2002) (“[P]ayment on a judgment will not moot an appeal of that judgment if the judgment debtor clearly expresses an intent ... to exercise his right of appeal and appellate relief is not … The City imports KB’s language that a plaintiff does not “prevail” for purposes of qualifying for a fee award unless it obtains “relief on the merits” of a claim “that materially alters the relationship between the parties

Bradley v. BOARD OF BUTLER COUNTY COMM'RS.

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.

Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue

174 Ariz. 507 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Oct 8, 1992

Arizona Highway Comm’n, 93 Ariz. 384 , 381 P.2d 107 (1963), severely limiting the common law defense of governmental tort immunity, and held that immunity is a defense “only when its application is necessary to avoid a severe … hampering or thwarting of established public policy.” 134 Ariz. at 311 , 656 P.2d at 600 .

Vidor Independent School District v. Levi Bentsen, by and Through Next Friend, Glynda Bentsen and Glynda Bentsen, Individually

Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont) · Jul 14, 2005

In its amended plea, Vidor contended immunity has not been waived because Alexander is no longer liable to the Bentsens, and because the Bentsens failed to plead facts establishing a waiver, including any facts establishing … Further, the statutory language of section 101.021(1)(B) clearly states the issue as whether the employee would be liable. Official immunity protects individual employees from liability .

Elliott v. Rush Memorial Hospital

928 N.E.2d 634 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 11, 2010

We do not believe, however, that we ought to create broad immunity for certain types of defendants in a certain class of cases, where our legislature has already clearly spoken on the precise issue and provided for a more … The Defendants have not established that they are entitled to immunity as a matter of law under Section 9-30-6-6 against any civil claims Elliott might bring.

Lyons v. City of Aurora

1999 Colo. J. C.A.R. 1836 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Apr 1, 1999

The trial court’s resolution of any disputed facts with regard to its jurisdiction under the GIA is reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard. See Trinity Broadcasting of Denver, Inc. v. … No evidence established that the signal for the cross traffic was green at the same time the pedestrian signal indicated that it was permissible for plaintiff to cross the intersection.

Alake v. City of Boston

1 Mass. L. Rptr. 380 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Nov 10, 1993

“If the moving party establishes that absence of a triable issue, the party opposing the motion must respond and allege specific facts which would establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact in order to defeat … [provides] immunity only for discretionary conduct that involves policy making or planning.” Id, at 141. “[GJovernmental immunity does not result automatically just because the governmental actor had discretion.

H.S. v. Board of Regents, Southeast Missouri State University

967 S.W.2d 665 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Apr 14, 1998

Strom that his “T-eount/immune system is out of whack.” … Clearly Section 213.055 RSMo was meant to apply to the state and its political subdivisions.

Cameron County, Texas v. Francisco Salinas

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Aug 27, 2012

According to the County, section 75.002(f) of the recreational use statute, which was amended in 2005, clearly establishes a common law trespasser standard of care on governmental units in recreational use statute cases … The order states that appellees’ petition “alleges sufficient facts that establish a waiver of sovereign immunity by [the County] under the Texas Tort Claims Act and the Recreational Use Statute which establish jurisdiction

the City of Austin v. Donald Baker

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Jun 21, 2018

“The TCHRA waives immunity, but only when the plaintiff states a claim for conduct that actually violates the statute.” Id. (citing Garcia, 372 S.W.3d at 637). … DISCUSSION To overcome the City’s governmental immunity and establish jurisdiction, Baker must generate a genuine issue of fact as to each element of his retaliation claim.

Koh v. Village Greens of Woodridge

158 Ill. App. 3d 226 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 23, 1987

Failed to establish procedures to keep participants in a safe area during tournament play; c. … App. 3d 784, 787 , 391 N.E.2d 451 ), and a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action unless it clearly appears that no set of facts could be proved under the pleadings which would entitle the

James Wesley Amonett, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia

70 Va. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of Virginia · Feb 19, 2019

The police officers in this case were clearly not express agents of the prosecution, as there is nothing in the record before us to indicate that they were authorized by the Commonwealth Attorney to negotiate an immunity … “‘[A]pparent or ostensible agency’ . . . means ‘[a]n agency created by operation of law and established by a principal’s actions that would reasonably lead a third person to conclude that an agency exists.’”

City of Galveston v. Gray

93 S.W.3d 587 · Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · Dec 12, 2002

Mandamus relief is available when the record shows (1) the trial court clearly abused its discretion or violated a duty imposed by law, and (2) the absence of an adequate remedy by appeal. In re Daisy Mfg. … In general, cities and counties enjoy sovereign immunity from suit unless such immunity has been waived. County of Cameron v. Brown, 80 S.W.3d 549, 554 (Tex.2002); Reyes v. City of Houston, 4 S.W.3d 459, 461 (Tex.App.