Case law

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.

Miglicio v. HCM Claim Corp.

288 N.J. Super. 331 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 12, 1995

To hold the servicing carrier immune from acts of bad faith would be contrary to the public policy governing unfair claims settlement practices as established in N.J.S.A. 17:29B-4(9) and N.J.A.C. 11:2-17.1. … Summary judgment based on plaintiff's failure to establish damages is denied.

Lavette v. State

442 So. 2d 265 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Nov 16, 1983

immunity in time for a useful deposition to have been taken. … One of the conditions outlined in Smith for requiring a grant of immunity is that the proffered testimony is clearly exculpatory.

Coleman v. Windham Aviation Inc.

Superior Court of Rhode Island · Oct 19, 2006

Based on this test of strict statutory construction, this Court does not believe that the "sued and be sued" language of § 42-64-6 clearly evidences an intent by the Legislature to waive any and all governmental immunity … If the operation of the Westerly State Airport does not qualify under this standard, then RIAC will not be entitled to immunity under the public duty doctrine.

Kuchinski v. Charge & Ride, Inc.

21 A.D.3d 1062 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 26, 2005

“[T]he State is accorded a qualified immunity from liability arising out of a highway planning decision” (Buhr v State of New York, 295 AD2d 462, 463 [2002], quoting Friedman v State of New York, 67 NY2d 271, 283 [1986]). … We agree with the Supreme Court’s determination that Charge and Ride demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by establishing that it exercised only incidental control over Choudhary that was insufficient

Miller v. Southern Baptist Hosp.

806 So. 2d 10 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Nov 21, 2001

However, in summary, the record clearly shows that in addition to the host of side effects caused by the Interferon treatment, Mrs. … Graham clearly states that the sole issue at trial after the $100,000 payment is damages, not liability.

Roper v. Winner

244 S.W.2d 355 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Oct 17, 1951

The City of San Antonio granted that power to the Building Official, who, it would seem, is better qualified to understand and pass on the condition and construction of buildings. … The meaning is, that every citizen shall hold his life, liberty, property, and immunities under the protection of the general rules which govern society.

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

University Physicians, Inc. v. Pima County

206 Ariz. 63 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Sep 4, 2003

. ¶ 10 Section 42-11107 establishes three conditions to qualify for the tax exemption it creates. First, the institution seeking exemption must be a “charitable” institution. A.R.S. § 42-11107. … There is no evidence that would suggest that UPI is using a facility or its equipment for a purpose other than for the relief of the afflicted or one that is clearly outside of its charitable mission.

People v. Clendenin

232 P.3d 210 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Oct 29, 2009

A law is void for vagueness where its prohibitions are not clearly defined and it is reasonably susceptible of more than one interpretation by a person of common intelligence. Id. at 643 . … and, indeed, appears to be exactly what the voters intended in passing the amendment, it poses a bizarre practical anomaly—in order to effectuate the purpose of the amendment, namely, to provide an affirmative defense or immunity

Ortego v. Landry

98 La.App. 3 Cir. 1948 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Aug 11, 1999

“The affirmative defense of qualified immunity from suit is available to all governmental officials in § 1983 actions,” and “[t]he governmental official has the burden of proving the defense of qualified immunity.” La. … “The standard applicable in determining whether qualified immunity should be recognized is ‘objective reasonableness.’ ” Breaux v.

Gontmakher v. City of Bellevue

120 Wash. App. 365 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 1, 2004

Because the communication was made to a private newspaper, RCW 4.24.510 clearly did not apply. … Additionally, because RCW 4.24.510 clearly did not apply because the communication was not to a governmental agency, analyzing whether the statute excludes immunity for governmental entities was not central to the court’s

Anderson v. City of Detroit

54 Mich. App. 496 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 25, 1974

Plaintiffs appeal. *498 Plaintiffs concede that the doctrine of governmental immunity as set forth in the Michigan sovereign immunity statute, MCLA 691.1407; MSA 3.996(107), is well established but alleges the statute is … The right claimed by plaintiff clearly falls within that class. If a reasonable relation exists between the classification and some legitimate state interest, no denial of equal protection results.

New Heights Recovery & Power, LLC v. Bower

347 Ill. App. 3d 89 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 9, 2004

The Act directed electric utility companies to enter into 20-year contracts to buy electricity from qualified solid waste energy facilities (labeled with the acronym QSWEF) at a “retail rate” that was higher than the market … The supreme court, relying on section 4 of the Statute on Statutes, held the amendment applied prospectively because it constituted a substantive change in the law by establishing a tax credit for S corporation shareholders

State Ex Rel. Schoener v. Board of County Commissioners

84 Ohio App. 3d 794 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 30, 1992

Strict liability is imposed when an absolute nuisance is found to exist, but negligence must be proved to establish a qualified nuisance. Id., paragraphs two and three of the syllabus. In Metzger v. … We further assume, without deciding, that the county is not protected in this suit by any theory of sovereign immunity. 5 .

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

Better Government Ass'n v. Illinois High School Ass'n

2016 IL App (1st) 151356 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 29, 2016

App. 3d 1065 (2005), in which IHSA had sought protection under the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Tort Immunity Act) (745 ILCS 10/1-101 et seq. … Instead, the challenged statements were legal arguments asserted by IHSA in an effort to establish immunity under the Tort Immunity Act.

UCF Athletics Ass'n v. Plancher

121 So. 3d 1097 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Aug 16, 2013

Since a reasonable reader could believe that the liability waiver only extended to claims for injuries that were unavoidable “even when every reasonable precaution” had been taken, the court determined the waiver did not clearly … Eminisor, 104 So.3d 359, 368 (Fla.2012) (“The State acts through its agencies and independent establishments, and a corporate instrumentality of an agency or independent establishment is an instrumentality of the state.”)

Baseline Energy Services, LP and Baseline Services LLC v. Billy Tom Martin

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Jun 4, 2026

Escalon, arguing that statements made in quasi-judicial proceedings are protected by judicial immunity. 993 S.W.2d 422, 425 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi– Edinburg 1999, no pet.). … Martin clearly did not allege that he was entitled to the relief sought for any causes of 4 action except libel based on any of Baseline’s statements or communications.

Longo v. Tafaro

137 A.D.2d 661 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 16, 1988

Thus, in the field of traffic design engineering, the State is accorded a qualified immunity from liability arising out of a highway planning decision (Alexander v Eldred, 63 NY2d 460, 465-466 ; Weiss v Fote, 7 NY2d 579, … "Under this doctrine of qualified immunity, a governmental body may be held liable when its study of a traffic condition is plainly inadequate or there is no reasonable basis for its traffic plan (Alexander v Eldred, 63 NY2d