Case law

Peters v. Herrin Community School District No. 4

401 Ill. App. 3d 356 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 19, 2010

In the instant case, plaintiff pleaded sufficient facts to establish a duty under section 3 — 102(a) for the School District to protect Gene Peters. … The complaint alleged that the court was in a dangerous condition because it contained trenches that were clearly visible, that the defendant knew or should have known of this condition and that it would cause injury, and

Wilde v. Schwegmann Bros. Giant Supermarkets, Inc.

160 So. 2d 839 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Feb 3, 1964

The evidence clearly establishes that plaintiff was not held by defendant for the purpose of ascertaining the true facts, but simply to obtain a confession. … The mere fact that defendants permitted her to write the qualifying statement on the bottom thereof evidences their own uncertainty.

McGuire v. Honeycutt

387 So. 2d 674 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jul 30, 1980

We find that the record does not establish an intentional act within this definition. … These cases clearly establish that the Legislature may validly regulate causes of action including replacement or abolition that one person may have against another for personal injuries.

Garcia v. New York City Department of Health & Mental Hygiene

144 A.D.3d 59 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 6, 2016

Petitioners have failed to establish that the State has “clearly evinced a desire to preempt an entire field thereby precluding any further local regulation” (Jancyn Mfg. … directed, to state immunization efforts.

Andre Washington v. Caroline County Department of Social Services

Court of Appeals of Virginia · Dec 10, 2019

“[Sovereign immunity] is an established principle of sovereignty . . . that a sovereign State cannot be sued in its own courts . . . without its consent and permission.” DiGiacinto v. … However, the Commonwealth may waive its sovereign immunity. Id. at 465.

City of New Braunfels v. Roger G. Allen

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Apr 1, 2004

Barfield , 898 S.W.2d 288, 296 (Tex. 1995) ("The statute clearly waives immunity; indeed, there would be no purpose for the Act at all if immunity were not waived."). … Although the legislative history is unclear as to why section 554.0035 was added, we believe the first sentence of section 554.0035 and section 554.003 clearly waive immunity from suit , while the second sentence of section

City of New Braunfels v. Roger G. Allen

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Apr 1, 2004

Barfield, 898 S.W.2d 288, 296 (Tex. 1995) (“The statute clearly waives immunity; indeed, there would be no purpose for the Act at all if immunity were not waived.”). … Although the legislative history is unclear as to why section 554.0035 was added, we believe the first sentence of section 554.0035 and section 554.003 clearly waive immunity from suit, while the second sentence of section

Zeilman v. County of Kern

168 Cal. App. 3d 1174 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 6, 1985

It clearly was not intended to embrace persons detained by law officers temporarily for purposes of investigation. [Citations omitted.]” (Larson, supra, at p. 97 .) … Stephen was not in fact in need of immediate medical care and clearly lack of medical care did not ‘cause’ the death.

Arteman v. Clinton Community Unit School District No. 15

Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 22, 2000

App. 3d at 809 , 704 N.E.2d at 424 (in which this court concluded that a park district coach's decisions regarding what equipment and safety precautions were needed during tumbling maneuvers qualified "as the making of policy … The court further explained that the "public policy considerations in authorizing, and indeed encouraging, teachers to have broad discretion and latitude in the former situation quite clearly do not apply" where the issue

Amy Sipes and Tana (Trevino) Waddell v. the City of Grapevine

Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth) · Aug 31, 2004

If a motion clearly sets forth its grounds and otherwise meets rule 166a’s requirements, it is sufficient to raise both traditional and no-evidence grounds for summary judgment, even if the motion does not clearly delineate … Once the movant establishes sovereign immunity as a matter of law, the burden of production shifts to the non-movant to establish a waiver of immunity. Thompson, 57 S.W.3d at 552 .

Donnell v. HCA Health Services of Kansas, Inc.

29 Kan. App. 2d 426 · Court of Appeals of Kansas · Jul 6, 2001

The group of family practice physicians was formed in order that HCA might compete with other hospitals in the Wichita area which already had established clinics. We taire it that Dr. … When opposing a motion for summary judgment, an adverse party must come forward with evidence to establish a dispute as to a material fact.

Harris County, Texas, Port of Houston, Authority, Harris County Flood Control District, Houston Independent School District, City of Houston, Harris County Hospital District, Harris County Department of Education, and Houston Community College System v. Falcon Hunter, LLC

Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · Feb 7, 2019

The Taxing Units contend that Falcon Hunter failed to plead facts establishing subject-matter jurisdiction because it did not plead a waiver of governmental immunity applicable to its claim or, alternatively, did not plead … They argued that Tax Code section 31.11(k) does not clearly and unambiguously waive governmental immunity for a lawsuit seeking a refund of penalties, interest, and collection fees.

Shane Feldhaus v. City of Minnetonka

Court of Appeals of Minnesota · May 6, 2024

a duty clearly imposed by law. … City of Sauk Rapids, 422 N.W.2d 708, 709, 711 (Minn. 1988) (holding city’s decision not to remedy stormwater-holding pond by making costly repairs was “clearly of a policy-making nature” and immune from tort liability

Safford v. Bayou Lafourche Fresh Water District

872 So. 2d 1127 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Feb 23, 2004

Generally, any immunity claim must properly be addressed first, as a finding that the defendant is immune would obviate a detailed duty-risk analysis. See Hardy v. … The trial court ruled that the District was not entitled to immunity under La.

City of Hammond v. Cipich Ex Rel. Skowronek

788 N.E.2d 1273 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 30, 2003

The water department claimed governmental immunity. … Although our application of the Benton decision established new precedent, we were careful to note that our decision was entirely consistent with the long recognized common law rule that a municipality is immune from liability

Katsaris v. Cook

180 Cal. App. 3d 256 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 24, 1986

Section 31103 grants livestock owners immunity from both civil and criminal liability. … Thus, the privilege is both immunity from crim *266 inal actions brought in the name of the people and immunity from claims brought by individual dog owners.

Costa v. Josey

160 N.J. Super. 1 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 22, 1978

Any liability of a public entity established by this act is subject to any immunity of the public entity and is subject to any defenses that would be available to the public entity if it were a private person. [ N.J.S.A. … The differences between discretionary activities and ministerial activities may not always be clearly apparent. See Czyzewski v. Schwartz, 110 N.J. Super. 255, 260 (App. Div. 1970).

Oliver v. Travelers Insurance Co.

103 Wis. 2d 644 · Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · Jul 22, 1981

Therein the supreme court stated: It is not enough that respondent establish doubt as to the act’s constitutionality nor is it sufficient that respondent establish the unconstitutionality of the act as a probability. … There is, clearly, a rational basis for the distinction.

Moore v. City of Columbia

284 S.C. 278 · Court of Appeals of South Carolina · Jan 28, 1985

The de facto policies of a municipality may be established in several ways. … The complaints clearly fail to identify any discriminatory motive for the deprivation of equal protection. For this reason, the complaints fail to state a Section 1985 action.

Texas Department of Public Safety v. Leroy Torres

Texas Court of Appeals, 15th District · May 7, 2026

Supreme Court ultimately held no state may assert sovereign immunity to a USERRA lawsuit in state court. Torres v. Texas Dep’t of Pub. … An employee is not required to prove discrimination to establish a reemployment claim under Sections 4312 and 4313. 20 C.F.R. § 1002.33; Petty v. Metro.