Case law

Newsome by and Through Newsome v. Lowe

699 S.W.2d 748 · Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Jul 5, 1985

Although the precise terminology was not set forth, the “substantial equivalent” and “summary of the grounds” mandated by CR 26.02(3)(a) is clearly evident. … Nathanson is given a qualified immunity because, if full discovery was permitted, the rule becomes frustrated or “documents and tangible things” would not be produced or recorded.

Schooler v. State of California

102 Cal. Rptr. 2d 343 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 1, 2000

If we were to apply the language of Health and *1011 Safety Code section 115875 to the Government Code, perhaps an adjacent bluff could fall under “beach area,” thereby qualifying as part of a “public beach.” … However, because his nuisance action is barred, he cannot establish there is a redressable nuisance for which injunctive relief is available.

Texas Workforce Commission v. Maria Elena Olivas

Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso) · Aug 17, 2011

In its sole issue, the Commission contends that sovereign immunity for claims under the anti-retaliation statute has not been “clearly and unambiguously” waived, as required by Section 311.034 of the Texas Government Code … In reaching its conclusion that the newly-revised PSL no longer met the clear and unambiguous standard, the manner of the legislative intent analysis followed the framework established under the common law standard.

New York Schools Insurance Reciprocal v. Milburn Sales Co.

105 A.D.3d 716 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 3, 2013

Here, the plaintiff failed to meet its burden of establishing that the requested material was prepared solely in anticipation of litigation and, thus, is protected from disclosure by the qualified immunity privilege of CPLR … Since the plaintiff did not establish that the requested material was protected by the qualified immunity privilege set forth in CPLR 3101 (d) for material prepared exclusively in anticipation of litigation, there was no

Percha Creek Mining, LLC v. Fust

144 N.M. 569 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Jun 18, 2008

Jurisdictional barriers such as immunity make joinder not possible. See id. In this litigation, the County was initially a party and took the position that it was immune. … In the settlement agreement, Plaintiff expressly stated “that it is in the public interest for the County to be dismissed from this matter with prejudice on the basis of the County’s qualified immunity as established by the

Gutierrez v. Keller

2012 La.App. 4 Cir. 0987 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jan 16, 2013

factfinder is clearly wrong or manifestly erroneous. … Immunity Next, the plaintiffs argue that the immunity provisions provided to emergency vehicles do not apply to this case. The immunity provision applicable to emergency vehicles is found in La.

Feigley v. JEFFES

97 Pa. Commw. 583 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 2, 1986

Good; and allow Petitioner to audit the employment qualifications of the staff at SCI-Huntingdon to ensure that all staff members are minimally qualified for the positions which they hold. … This is clearly not authorized by Pa. R.A.P. 1514(c) and such attempted service is insufficient to vest this Court with personal jurisdiction over the Respondents.

Chapin v. City of White Plains

104 A.D.2d 785 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 1, 1984

Questions of fact also must be resolved to determine whether the city is immune from liability. … In addition, to establish the city’s liability, plaintiff must demonstrate that there was a causal connection between the accident and the alleged violation of the applicable statute.

Marcellus v. Mays

2012 Ark. App. 304 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 2, 2012

Finally, she argues that Mays has an “established pattern of deceit” that is a “significant negative influence on the child.” We find this argument unconvincing. … Significantly, with regard to the case-at-bar, the probate code clearly states that “The parents of an unmarried minor, or either of them, if qualified and, in the opinion of the court, suitable, shall be preferred over all

Mississippi Gaming Commission v. Baker

755 So. 2d 1129 · Court of Appeals of Mississippi · May 6, 1999

In the case sub judice, the agents argue that they should be entitled to qualified immunity under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act, Mississippi Code Annotated Section 11-46-9. … Although the agents asserted that they were protected by this provision in their answers and defenses pleadings, no further mention of the Tort Claims Act or qualified immunity exists in the record.

Maes v. Audubon Indemnity Insurance Group

139 N.M. 39 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Dec 21, 2005

The FAIR Plan Act and the Plan’s bylaws establish the following facts about the Plan’s operations. … Maes seems to be arguing that (1) the statute clearly provides immunity for the Plan itself, (2) if the Plan indemnified the servicing carrier, that would indicate that the servicing carrier was simply acting as an instrumentality

Otterbeing Maineville, L.L.C. v. Carman

2025 Ohio 1013 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 24, 2025

: [I]f the Legislature intended to grant the broad immunity from personal liability [that] the [trial] court found, and which defendants urge, it would have done so more clearly … And residential care facilities like Otterbein qualify as "suppliers" under the Act. Id. at ¶ 28, fn. 5.

City of Colorado Springs v. Mountain View Electric Ass'n

925 P.2d 1378 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Apr 25, 1996

Thus, for the City to be immune from federal antitrust liability, it need only show that its role in the contract with Mountain View was undertaken pursuant to a clearly articulated state policy. … Thus, we hold that a municipality or cooperative electric association is immune from state antitrust liability when it is shown that the anticompetitive conduct at issue was undertaken pursuant to a clearly articulated state

McNeal v. City of Easton

143 Pa. Commw. 151 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 22, 1991

Those examples collectively stand for the proposition that “liability clearly does not extend to mere insults, indignities, threats, [or] annoyances.” … We further note that employees of local agencies enjoy no immunity for their intentional torts.

Findleton v. Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians

1 Cal. App. 5th 1194 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 29, 2016

The Tribal Council’s powers also include enacting laws, statutes and codes, and establishing tribal courts. … “Consistent with this policy,” the cases hold that “ ‘tribal courts are best qualified to interpret and apply tribal law.’ ” (Prescott v. Little Six, Inc. (8th Cir. 2004) 387 F.3d 753, 756.)

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.

Simpson v. Unemployment Insurance Compensation Appeals Board

187 Cal. App. 3d 342 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 25, 1986

As interpreted by the courts, article IX bestows on the university a general immunity from legislative regulation. … Part 2 of the code as a whole establishes SDI and NDI as distinct systems with no mechanism for reciprocity between them.

Com. v. Hunt, B.

220 A.3d 582 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 1, 2019

It is not clear that Bass Pallets qualifies as an “individual” under § 11.103 (and, therefore, as a “direct victim”). … It seems unlikely that Bass Pallets would be able to establish a “loss of earnings” for the purposes of this definition.

Fleming Companies, Inc. v. Moreira

690 So. 2d 1367 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Apr 2, 1997

The court also established that where the association between the employee and the special employer is in doubt, the actual employment relationship, and not the subjective intent of the parties, is controlling. … Here, Regency is in the business of supplying temporary help and provided workers' compensation coverage, thereby clearly falling under the terminology of Section 440.11(2). See Sagarino v.

O'LAUGHLIN v. Windham

330 S.C. 379 · Court of Appeals of South Carolina · Mar 16, 1998

The Act was adopted to ensure “that the State, and its political subdivisions are only liable for torts within the limitations of this chapter and in accordance with the principles established herein.” … As a ministerial recorder, Cure has statutorily defined powers which are clearly limited to the issuance of summonses, subpoenas, and warrants. S.C.Code Ann. § 14-25-115 (Supp.1997).