Case law

Krasney v. Curators of the University of Missouri

765 S.W.2d 646 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jan 31, 1989

We have found no instance ... where the word “corporation” alone in a constitutional provision or in a statute is clearly intended to refer to, or include, a municipal corporation. … A violation of service letter § 290.140 also invests an employee [an employee at will included], *652 who otherwise qualifies, with a cause of action for damages against the employer. Dake v.

City of Detroit v. Kenwal Products Corp.

14 Mich. App. 657 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 25, 1969

Maryland, supra, it has become well-established that imports lose their constitutional immunity when the importer (1) sells them or (2) “breaks up the packages” or (3) puts them to the use for which they were imported. … The precise relationship between the domestic companies and the foreign mills (or brokers in some cases) does not clearly appear on the records, but it can be discerned that the domestic concerns entered into separate and

Walker v. State

674 P.2d 825 · Court of Appeals of Alaska · Dec 23, 1983

I don’t believe he’s qualified to offer opinion evidence as to this question. THE COURT: Do you want to respond to that? … The court noted that the Washington legislature had clearly placed the burden of proof on the defendant to establish certain defenses but that the new code was “conspicuously silent on the quantum or burden of proof as to

City of Albany v. South Georgia Rails to Trails, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Georgia · May 6, 2025

IX, § 5, ¶ I (a) (“[N]o such county, municipality, or other political subdivision shall incur any new debt without the assent of a majority of the qualified voters of such county, municipality, or political subdivision voting … App. 156, 158 (863 SE2d 527) (2021) (“Like the Supreme Court of Georgia, this Court will not rule on a constitutional question unless it clearly appears in the record that the trial court distinctly ruled on the point.”

Waffle House, Inc. v. Cathie Williams

Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth) · Feb 1, 2007

They contend that the statute’s language clearly waives immunity and makes a city liable for the damages arising from the city’s exercise of its now statutorily defined governmental functions. … Further, as to the negligence causes of action, the City contends that appellants failed to assert a claim within a city’s limited waiver of immunity established by section 101.021 of the TTCA. Id. §101.021.

R.H.S. v. Allegheny County Department of Human Services

936 A.2d 1218 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 15, 2007

Preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer should be sustained only where the pleadings are clearly insufficient to establish a right to relief; any doubt must be resolved in favor of overruling the demurrer. … Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts establishing Tarasi’s actions constituted a crime or willful misconduct. Accordingly, Plaintiffs assertion that Tarasí is not immune from suit fails. D.

Collins v. Town of Normal

2011 IL App (4th) 100694 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 22, 2011

At the opposite end, section 2-101 of the Tort Immunity Act -3-  specifies some situations where the Tort Immunity Act does not apply, where there clearly is … “[U]nder established Illinois law, public entities possess no immunized discretion to discharge employees for exercising their workers’ compensation rights.” Smith v.

Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Town of Moreau Assessor

8 A.D.3d 935 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 24, 2004

A person seeking to invoke this immunity must establish that “(1) he or she is in fact a nonresident, (2) whose sole purpose in appearing in New York is to attend the judicial proceedings, and (3) there were no other means … In our view, the affidavits of Lagassa and Pikul do not clearly establish that either expert entered New York for the sole purpose of attending a judicial proceeding or, in fact, that they actually appeared to provide testimony

Harwood v. Johnson

92 N.C. App. 306 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 20, 1988

The doctrine of sovereign immunity — that the State cannot be sued in its own courts, or in any other, without its consent — is firmly established in the common law of North Carolina. Orange County v. … of sovereign immunity.

State v. Brock

2026 Ohio 2036 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 1, 2026

Immunity {¶ 106} In his fifth assignment of error, Brock argues that the trial court erred by granting immunity to Dustin Johnson. … R.C. 2945.44 ("Immunity Statute"). The Immunity Statute authorizes the trial court to grant immunity and compel testimony when appropriate, unless doing so would not serve the administration of justice. Id.

Binkley v. Landry

2000 La.App. 1 Cir. 1710 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Sep 28, 2001

immunity provided to public entities in Louisiana Revised Statute 9:2798.1. … Act No. 1264 of 1999 clearly added an additional exception to the grant of immunity for loss or damage sustained in a Mardi Gras parade.

State v. Newton

12 La.App. 3 Cir. 509 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Feb 13, 2013

Defendant argues in brief that “[t]he fact that Joshua Lambert exculpated Sean Newton in a police interview with Officer Chatham [sic] is clearly a Brady violation. … Defendant asserts that Watson “clearly believed that he would receive immunity in exchange for his testimony.”

Firearms Owners Against Crime - Inst. for Legal Leg. & Ed. Action v. Col. R. Evanchick, Comm. PSP

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 6, 2023

Regarding sovereign immunity, although Rule 1030 indicates that immunity ordinarily must be raised in New Matter, “a party may raise the affirmative defense of immunity as a preliminary objection where it is clearly applicable … Mandamus differs from declaratory relief in that mandamus “is not available to establish legal rights but only to enforce rights that have been established.” Sinkiewicz v. Susquehanna Cnty.

Jones v. Robert E. Bayley Construction Co.

36 Wash. App. 357 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 5, 1984

Public policy requires that an intent to waive the employer's immunity be clearly expressed. Glass v. Stahl Specialty Co., 97 Wn.2d 880, 886 , 652 P.2d 948 (1982); Calkins v. Lorain Div. of Koehring Co., 26 Wn. … "The agreement need only clearly express an intent to provide for indemnification." Noia v. Ferrell-Penning, Inc., supra. Clause L clearly expresses an intent to provide for indemnification.

Adams v. Japanese Car Care

106 N.M. 376 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Aug 25, 1987

We view this evidence as sufficient to establish a prima facie showing that the City did not design, build or maintain the sewer system. … WAIVER OF IMMUNITY UNDER THE TORT CLAIMS ACTS Plaintiffs rely on Section 41-4-8 as support for their argument that the City has waived immunity in the present case.

Robson v. Rodriquez

44 N.J. Super. 262 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 13, 1957

Necessary proofs covering the above facts have been established and filed with the court. … It clearly states that a Fund is established and that only `certain' persons are to be paid out of it for injuries or death and that it is to be resorted to for property damage only in `certain cases.' *270 If the incidental

State Ex Rel. Otte v. Missouri State Treasurer

182 S.W.3d 638 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Dec 6, 2005

On appeal, Treasurer argued that it was protected from execution by the doctrine of sovereign immunity because Treasurer was a state entity and the legislature had not specifically waived sovereign immunity in the circumstances … Treasurer thereafter filed its response and suggestions in opposition to Relator’s petition, arguing that an action in mandamus was inappropriate because Relator had no clearly established right to the payment of interest

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

Texas State Technical College v. Beavers

218 S.W.3d 258 · Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana) · Apr 10, 2007

Likewise, whether undisputed evidence of jurisdictional facts establishes a trial court’s jurisdiction is also a question of law. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 225-26 . … shifted due to TSTC’s failure to perform a Process Safety Analysis on the use of the crane to roll the engine, including proper rigging, support equipment, safety practices, and the failure to ensure that instructors were qualified

Group Resources, Inc. v. City of Waycross

812 S.E.2d 141 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Mar 8, 2018

However, the majority has ignored the qualifying language of the exception, which plainly provides that the exception applies only if the claim, not to mention any costs and expenses, " results from willful misconduct or … Official immunity. Defendant Raphel Maddox also argues that he, individually, was entitled to summary judgment on the basis of official immunity.