Case law

Meek v. Department of Transportation

240 Mich. App. 105 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 22, 2000

This finding is not clearly erroneous. … Given the evidence, the trial court’s award of damages was not clearly erroneous. Affirmed.

Scavone v. Scavone

230 N.J. Super. 482 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 9, 1988

Passive, Immune Asset (Pre-marital, Gift, Inheritance) in One Name. … The immunity of assets acquired in such a manner is stated very clearly in N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23 and its accompanying statements.

Meyer v. Community College of Beaver County

30 A.3d 587 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 27, 2011

Clearly, no form of government unit or public authority is expressly included in the definition. What is less clear is whether the phrase “any other legal entities” extends to public agencies. … Such a result is indefensible, clearly not in the public interest, and inconsistent with our *595 charge to liberally construe the CPL to achieve its objectives.

Rick Staly, as Sheriff of Flagler County, Florida v. Nina Izotova

District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 20, 2024

Notwithstanding this argument, nothing in the record establishes that the Bureau of Consumer Assistance is a subdivision of DFS or that their mailing addresses are the same. … Additionally, Appellee cites no case law supporting her claims that notice to a subdivision of DFS qualifies as notice to DFS for purposes of section 768.28(6)(a).

Reynolds v. Hamilton Cty. Dev. Disabilities Servs.

233 N.E.3d 1161 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 12, 2024

But that doesn’t mean that any individual who works for a certified service provider qualifies as an employee. … Reynolds has not met the “rigorous standard” to establish that the exceptions in R.C. 2744.03(6) apply.

the University of Texas System Operating as the University of Texas at El Paso v. Kenneth Palomino

498 S.W.3d 711 · Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso) · Aug 24, 2016

We concluded therefore that Duran failed to establish a waiver of immunity under the Tort Claims Act because she had failed to show that her instructors had exercised direct and mandatory control over her actions. … Accordingly, Palomino has failed to establish a waiver of immunity under the Tort Claims Act. We therefore grant UTEP’s issue on appeal.

Brown v. Aztec Rig Equipment, Inc.

921 S.W.2d 835 · Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · May 23, 1996

Clearly, Aztec complied with the Act’s notice provisions. … Because: (1) the summary judgment clearly establishes a co-employment relationship; (2) the courts of this state do not prohibit co-employers; and (3) the legislature has expressly recognized such a relationship in the context

Friedland v. Podhoretz

174 N.J. Super. 73 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 23, 1980

For example, the court has established a statewide disciplinary review board composed of both attorneys and nonattorneys. … The Ramstead court said that "we think that the legislature, in clearly separating the other classes given an *87 unqualified immunity from those who file a complaint alleging misconduct, evinced the intention to limit the

the City of Houston v. Madison T. Garner

Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · Jul 12, 2022

The City filed a traditional motion for summary judgment arguing that it was immune from Garner’s suit because Garner could not establish a prima facie case of race discrimination or a hostile work environment. … Race Discrimination To establish a prima facie case of race discrimination, the employee must show that he is (1) a member of a protected class; (2) was qualified for his position; (3) suffered an adverse employment

Capital Telephone Co. v. New York Telephone Co.

146 A.D.2d 312 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 4, 1989

The dismissal was on the ground that, even if the conduct complained of would otherwise have established an actionable violation of Federal antitrust laws, the doctrine of "State action immunity” from antitrust liability … "If however, the [Federal] court in the first action would clearly not have had jurisdiction to entertain the omitted theory or ground (or, having jurisdiction, would clearly have declined to exercise it as a matter of discretion

Sebring Utilities Com'n v. Home Sav. Ass'n

508 So. 2d 26 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jun 5, 1987

The Sebring Utilities Commission was established by the Florida Legislature pursuant to Chapter 23535, Laws of Florida (1945). … We hold these provisions evidence a clearly expressed state policy to displace competition with monopoly public service.

Parker v. HUNEGNAW

364 S.W.3d 398 · Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · Mar 27, 2012

Taylor, 106 S.W.3d 692 , 694 n. 3 (Tex.2003) (stating, although courts often use terms “sovereign immunity” and “gov *403 ernmental immunity” interchangeably, sovereign immunity refers to State’s immunity from suit and liability … As Hunegnaw suggests, the Lain court clearly distinguished a suit against a governmental entity, which is barred by sovereign immunity, from a suit against an official of the governmental entity, for which resolution of the

Cleveland Askew, Jr. v. Trooper Edward Whitworth

Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Jan 12, 2023

Thus, bad faith can be predicated on a violation of a constitutional, statutory, or other clearly established right which a person in the public employee’s position presumptively would … So when deciding whether force was excessive or whether our precedent clearly established that result, we must view genuine factual disagreements in the light most favorable to the

Yellow Cab Transit Co. v. Tuck

115 S.W.2d 455 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Feb 5, 1938

Clearly, the purpose of the constitutional amendment and the Enabling Act was to bestow upon all cities falling within the bracket of 5,000 inhabitants or more, the power of local self-government and full authority to do … The privileges and immunities clause of the Federal Constitution (Amend. 14) safeguards to the citizens of one state the right to pass through or to reside in any other state for the purpose of trade, etc.

City of Dallas v. VRC LLC

260 S.W.3d 60 · Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas) · Aug 19, 2008

Here, the undisputed evidence establishes VRC could not plead a valid regulatory takings claim. … “Sovereign immunity” refers to the State's immunity from suit and liability, and it protects the State and its subdivisions.

Mark Kershaw v. City of Kansas City, Missouri

Missouri Court of Appeals · May 6, 2014

The City Legal Expense Fund ordinance clearly and unequivocally establishes a duty on the City’s part to pay Starr on the Kershaws’ negligence judgment. … We hold that the City Legal Expense Fund ordinance, specifically section 2-1685(g), clearly and unequivocally establishes a duty on the City‟s part, wholly independent of its duty to Kershaw under the Workers‟ Compensation

Kirschbaum v. The Village of Homer Glen

Appellate Court of Illinois · May 11, 2006

The Third District holds the Tort Immunity Act does not impose duties, but confers immunities. Havens v. Harris Township, 175 Ill. App. 3d 768, 771, 530 N.E.2d 284, 285 (3rd Dist. 1988); Bainter v. … CONCLUSION Because we find that section 3-102 of the Tort Immunity Act does not create a duty for defendants to clear brush from an intersection where there are clearly visible traffic control devices at each corner

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

Schleier for Alter v. Alter

159 Ariz. 397 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Jan 10, 1989

See Prosser & Keeton, supra, § 122 at 909 (liability clearly justified “where the parent himself maintains a dangerous instrument such as dynamite caps or a vicious dog in the home.”) … The strict liability remedy established by § 24-521 is limited to dog bite victims bitten when “in or on a public place or lawfully in or on a private place, including the property of the owner of the dog.”

Field v. Kearns

43 Conn. App. 265 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Sep 24, 1996

As a result, absolute immunity for the content of statements made during a quasi-judicial proceeding, as established in Petyan , applies to bar grievance proceedings. … A rule establishing absolute immunity for bar grievants protects the public confidence and the integrity of our judicial system. See Hearing on Immunity for Ethics Complaints, 96 N.J. 669, 679 , 477 A.2d 339 (1984).