Case law

Noble v. Los Angeles Dodgers, Inc.

168 Cal. App. 3d 912 · California Court of Appeal · May 30, 1985

It seems anomalous to us that a public entity which has the primary role in providing police protection is so immunized while persons not generally considered to have that general responsibility are not so immunized. … control the conduct of police and render them less effective in deterring crime, the law should at the same time encourage the expansion of private police forces who necessarily are less professional, less trained and less qualified

Rivard v. State

Vermont Superior Court · Jun 26, 2024

While tort claims against State employees must be asserted against the State, and not the employee, under both 12 V.S.A. § 5602(a) and the doctrine of qualified immunity, employees who commit gross negligence or willful misconduct … We consider whether the respective defendants are protected from liability by immunity, and to the extent they are not, whether plaintiffs’ allegations can establish gross negligence.”).

Brown v. Lubbock County Comm. Court

185 S.W.3d 499 · Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo) · Nov 21, 2005

Section 14.005 applies to suits arising out of a claim “subject to the grievance system established under Section 501.008 [of the] Government Code.” … Appellant’s petition clearly alleges the judicial defendants were acting in their judicial capacities. It does not allege they acted in the complete absence of jurisdiction.

Harris County Flood Control District v. Kerr, Edward A. and Normal

Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Mar 7, 2013

For ease of reference, we will use the term “sovereign immunity” to reference both sovereign immunity and governmental immunity. 12 290 (Tex. App. … Id. at 312 (holding that city retained immunity from nuisance claim because plaintiffs did not establish constitutional taking and did not assert waiver of immunity for nuisance claim).

Krolikowski v. San Diego City Employees' Retirement System

California Court of Appeal · Jun 14, 2018

establish prejudice from any delay. … The decision was clearly discretionary and was not merely the carrying out of a ministerial duty.

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.”

Abruzzo v. City of Park Ridge

374 Ill. App. 3d 743 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 22, 2007

Immunity under the Act qualifies as an affirmative matter properly raised in a section 2 — 619 motion to dismiss. Arteman v. … the defendant in that case had established a fire department with emergency services.

Dalenko v. Collier

191 N.C. App. 713 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 5, 2008

with judicial immunity. … Plaintiffs complaint alleges conduct which was clearly within the course and scope of the arbitration proceeding.

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).

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.

County of San Diego v. San Diego NORML

165 Cal. App. 4th 798 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 31, 2008

To that end, the MMP included provisions establishing a voluntary program for the issuance of identification cards to persons qualified to claim the exemptions provided under California’s medical marijuana laws. (§§ 11362.7 … patients and primary caregivers would be immune.

Bayfront v. Birth-Related Neurological

982 So. 2d 704 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jan 16, 2008

Accordingly, with the law now established that the ALJ does, in fact, have jurisdiction to consider the issues of notice and the application of the Plan's immunity provision, we now review the ALJ's conclusion that Bayfront's … The statute does not mandate that both the hospital and physician must give notice; rather, the statute qualifies which hospitals must give notice.

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.

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.

Curadev Pharma PVT. LTD. and Curadev Pharma Limited v. the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dr. Xiaochen Bai, and Dr. Xuewu Zhang

Texas Court of Appeals, 15th District · Aug 21, 2025

A plaintiff may overcome a sovereign immunity defense if the plaintiff demonstrates that the Legislature has clearly and unambiguously waived the government’s immunity by statute. See State ex rel. Best v. … To the extent a government employee is not entitled to official immunity, under the common law, the employee’s liability could be established in a suit against the employee individually. Garza v.

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.

Corona v. State of California

178 Cal. App. 4th 723 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 23, 2009

is nevertheless immune under Government Code section 818.4. … For this reason, the State is not entitled to immunity under section 818.4.

Franklin v. Gupta

81 Md. App. 345 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 3, 1990

Terry Walman, who was associated with Johns Hopkins Hospital and was qualified as an expert in anesthesiology. Dr. … Hosp., 191 Md. 617 , 62 A.2d 574 (1948); Annotation, Immunity of Nongovernmental Charity From Liability for Damages in Tort, 25 A.L.R.2d 29 (1952), superseded, Tort Immunity of Nongovernmental Charities—Modern Status, 25

Dammann v. Golden Gate Bridge, Highway & Transportation District

212 Cal. App. 4th 335 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 20, 2012

had clearly revealed the defects of the plan.” … A public entity claiming design immunity must establish three elements: (1) a causal relationship between the plan or design and the accident; (2) discretionary approval of the plan or design prior to construction; and (3

Ottinger Ex Rel. Jassak v. Pinel

215 Wis. 2d 266 · Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · Nov 26, 1997

However, the Department of Corrections Securities Policies and Procedures Manual more clearly outlines the procedures for escape and apprehension. The manual provides in part: F. … The court commented: Because we are satisfied that the questions presented in the case at bar are resolved by well-established Wisconsin law regarding the doctrine of immunity, we find that examination of decisions from other