Case law

A. I. Divestitures, Inc.// the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality And Richard Hyde, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality v. the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality And Richard Hyde, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality// A. I. Divestitures, Inc.

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Jun 2, 2016

We concluded that the civil penalties the State sought did not qualify as damages or monetary relief as those terms were used in Reata. Id. at *8. … We have concluded that most of A.I.’s claims are moot and that its breach of contract claim is barred by sovereign immunity.8 Repleading will not revive moot claims or establish a waiver of immunity.

Stoick v. Caro Community Hospital

167 Mich. App. 154 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 9, 1988

His decision not to admit the Plaintiff was clearly a discretional act under the circumstances of this case and immune from liability [sic]. … In response, defendant did not argue that the facts pled by plaintiffs were not sufficient to establish bad faith. Dr.

POLK STATE COLLEGE DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES v. SHANTRELL FISHER

District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 9, 2024

“[B]ecause sovereign immunity includes immunity from suit, entitlement to sovereign immunity should be established as early in the litigation as possible.” Fla. Highway Patrol v. … legislature had “authorized certain goals and activities which can only be achieved if state agencies have the power to contract for necessary goods and services,” the Florida Supreme Court reasoned that the legislature “clearly

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.

Doe v. Escambia County School Bd.

599 So. 2d 226 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · May 18, 1992

Briefly, the evidence viewed in a light most favorable to the Does' case established the following. … The trial court erred in characterizing the plaintiff's cause of action as one for lack of adequate security; the complaint and the evidence of record clearly show that it is for the negligent breach of the school's duty

Bozeman v. Reed

633 So. 2d 944 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Mar 11, 1994

that the finding is clearly wrong (manifestly erroneous). … We find that the record supports an assessment of 50 percent fault on the part of Reed. [11] DPS'S IMMUNITY FROM LIABILITY ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER THREE In this assignment of error, DPS contends that it is immune from

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

Lower Valley Water District v. Danny Sander Construction, Inc.

Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso) · Jul 10, 2019

Section 271.152 of the Texas Local Government Code waives qualifying local governmental entities’ immunity from suit for certain breach of contract claims. Williams, 353 S.W.3d at 134. … For immunity to be waived, three elements must be established: (1) the party against whom the waiver is asserted must be a “local governmental entity” as defined by Section 271.151(3); (2) the entity must be authorized

Quevedo Ex Rel. Bevan v. New Mexico Children, Youth & Families Department

10 N.M. 707 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Aug 31, 2016

For instance, the Children’s Code establishes standards for the housing of children by CYFD. … Both the shelter-care regulations and foster home regulations clearly address a wide variety of aspects of the day-to-day operation of the subject facilities.

Khatri v. Ohio State Univ.

254 N.E.3d 219 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 26, 2024

Khatri first argued that his civil conspiracy claim qualifies under exceptions to the intra-corporate conspiracy doctrine because OSU employees who were acting outside the scope of their employment conspired with OSU employees … immunity under [R.C. 9.86].

Christopher Zang v. City of St. Charles, Missouri

Missouri Court of Appeals · Oct 19, 2021

(2), which permits actions for negligence against cities, stating that immunity is “hereby expressly waived” for: Injuries caused by the condition of a public entity’s property if the plaintiff establishes … While these statutes clearly 4  In Findley v.

G. H. Sternberg & Co. v. Bond

30 Ill. App. 3d 874 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 24, 1975

“AN ACT in relation to immunity for the State of Illinois” (Ill. Rev. … It was clearly the intent of plaintiff to enjoin any and all members of State government from taking action on the bond.

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.

O'Donnell v. R.M. Shoemaker & Co.

2003 Pa. Super. 42 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 3, 2003

. ¶ 2 “In our review of a case decided on summary judgment, a trial court’s order granting summary judgment will not be reversed unless it is established that the court committed an error of law or clearly abused its discretion … It is unreasonable to conclude that Fluidics would be immune from tort liability as to Mr. O’Donnell, but that Fluidies’s employees, for whom Fluidics is responsible, are not so immune.

Starr v. Reinfeld

267 N.J. Super. 25 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 4, 1993

The judge concluded that “a denial of quasi-judicial immunity would certainly deter qualified individuals from agreeing to serve in any quasi-judicial appointments of the court” and “deny judges these valuable resources.” … The Supreme Court, through Justice Stevens, declared that: “The proponent of a claim to absolute immunity bears the burden of establishing the justification for such immunity.”

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.

Griffith v. State

734 P.2d 1301 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Mar 11, 1987

Therefore, the appellant failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the affidavit was not supported with sufficient facts to establish probable cause. … In this procedure, the trial court has the authority to grant immunity on a question-by-question basis.

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.

Kohler v. Rockwell International Corp.

600 S.W.2d 647 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jun 9, 1980

The reason for the doctrine announced in the Hewlett case is stated, “ ‘to permit a child to maintain an action in tort against the parent is to introduce discord and contention where the laws of nature have established peace … But the third party petition was clearly ruled upon the basis that it failed to state a claim because of the parental immunity doctrine.

Hull v. Foley

17 Mass. L. Rptr. 187 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Jan 15, 2004

Whether the Defendant Physician Is Immune from Liability for Negligence under the Tort Claims Act The Massachusetts Tort Claims Act, G.L.c. 258, represents a limited waiver of sovereign immunity with respect to certain agencies … The undisputed facts establish that Dr. Foley’s treatment of Ms.