Case law

City of Philadelphia v. Delaware County Board of Assessment Appeals

691 A.2d 992 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 28, 1997

from taxation under the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity. … Clearly, a building which has the purpose of facditating the regional distribution of the mad away from the Airport is not a general service budding that would qualify for taxation under the terms of Paragraph 8 of the Agreement

Donald Brooks v. William J. Laurie and Crown Center Farms, Inc.

Missouri Court of Appeals · Nov 22, 2022

extends the workers’ compensation obligations (and civil immunity protections) to ‘statutory employers.’” … However, the immunity asserted was contingent on Crown Center Farms being Brooks’s statutory employer.

Layton v. Quinn

120 Mich. App. 708 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 2, 1982

Out of the four opinions of the seven justices, only Justice Williams clearly abandoned the ministerial-discretionary test. The following month, the Court decided Lockaby, supra. … Established rules of law are not generally abandoned merely by implication. See People v Stoeckl, *721 347 Mich 1, 16 ; 78 NW2d 640 (1956).

People v. Whitley

14 A.D.3d 403 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 18, 2005

The evidence established that defendant admitted his guilt to four persons on separate occasions. … Furthermore, the People properly refused to immunize the witness (see People v Adams, 53 NY2d 241, 247 [1981]; People v Shapiro, 50 NY2d 747 [1980]).

Walls Regional Hospital v. Altaras

903 S.W.2d 36 · Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco) · Dec 30, 1994

That act is clearly not applicable here because Walls Regional Hospital is not a state agency. See Tex.Gov’t Code Ann. § 2001.003(7). … Voluntary participation is encouraged by the grant of immunity against damage claims.

State of Texas and Texas Department of Transportation v. George Lueck

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Aug 18, 2006

Sovereign immunity is waived only when the legislature has clearly and unambiguously expressed that intent. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 311.034 (West Supp. 2005); Texas Dep’t of Transp. v. … (“We believe the first sentence of section 554.0035 . . . clearly waive[s] immunity from suit, while the second sentence of section 554.0035, by its terms, waives immunity from liability.”)

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

Baugh v. Maintenance & MacHine Erectors, Inc.

157 Or. App. 128 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 4, 1998

ORS 656.855 charges the director of DCBS with the task of establishing a licensing system for worker leasing companies. … Moreover, if a worker leasing company provides both leased workers and workers on a temporary basis, it must also maintain payroll records that show specifically which workers are provided on a temporary basis, thus clearly

Govan v. Philadelphia Housing Authority

848 A.2d 193 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 27, 2004

The record clearly supports Govan’s position when reviewed in a light most favorable to Govan as the non-moving party. … This undisputed evidence establishes that PHA had possession of or control over the dog for purposes of the sovereign immunity exception for care, custody, or control of animals.

Odum v. Harn

829 S.E.2d 818 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Jun 19, 2019

The Court explained: Even in the context of functions that are typically discretionary, a written (or unwritten) policy, a supervisor's specific directive, or a statute may establish a ministerial duty - but only if the directives … As we said in Eshleman , "even when an officer clearly owes a duty of care and is absolutely required to do something , unless she has been commanded - by law or by the policy or directive of her employer - to do a particular

Bishop v. Beckner

109 S.W.3d 725 · Court of Appeals of Tennessee · Sep 23, 2002

There are no facts or reasonable inferences from facts that could be construed to establish gross negligence on the part of the defendant. … Simple negligence does, not operate to negate the immunity of T.C.A. § 70-7-102.

Berman v. City of Daly City

21 Cal. App. 4th 276 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 22, 1993

That court was convinced that “policies must clearly and with specificity set forth standards to guide officers in the field. … A review of these rulings by other circuits, however, leaves us convinced that the facts as alleged by Berman fail to establish a section 1983 cause of action in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Galetti v. Reeve

6 N.M. 443 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · May 28, 2014

{11} In Celnik, we recognized that the immunity afforded by the church autonomy doctrine “is not absolute[.]” Id. ¶ 20. … See id. at 700, 707-09 (refusing “to adopt a rigid formula for deciding when an employee qualifies as a minister” and concluding based on various factors that a “called teacher” was a minister for purposes of the ministerial

Carlton v. Department of Corrections

215 Mich. App. 490 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 29, 1996

However, the only fact that was clearly established by all the testimony was that if the dps building had been up-to-date and had used state-of-the-art technology, [the decedent’s] suicide may have been detected earlier and … Like Hickey, supra, our review of the testimony, as well as the trial court’s findings, indicates that the only fact that was clearly established was that if each cell in unit 2 had been equipped with a smoke detector, the

Esperanza Andrade, in Her Official Capacity as Secretary of State for the State of Texas v. NAACP of Austin, Nelson Linder, Sonia Santana and David Van Os

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Apr 10, 2009

We determine only whether sovereign immunity bars that claim. … It is too much of a stretch to conclude that, upon failing to uncover every existing error, such a recount would necessarily fail to qualify as a "recount" for the purposes of section 211.001.

Esperanza Andrade, in Her Official Capacity as Secretary of State for the State of Texas v. NAACP of Austin, Nelson Linder, Sonia Santana and David Van Os

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Apr 10, 2009

We determine only whether sovereign immunity bars that claim. … It is too much of a stretch to conclude that, upon failing to uncover every existing error, such a recount would necessarily fail to qualify as a “recount” for the purposes of section 211.001.

Prayson v. Kansas City Power & Light Co.

847 S.W.2d 852 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Dec 22, 1992

In Chevron, the United States Supreme Court includes another method in the first factor by which *856 a new principle of law may be established, and the conditions necessary for that method, to qualify for prospective-only … While Zueck may establish a new principle of law by deciding an issue of first impression, the resolution of this issue was clearly foreshadowed.

Wolff v. Wolff

110 N.E.3d 1218 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Aug 8, 2018

to pass a physical exam or qualify for new insurance" coverage "due to his health conditions." … Moreover, the judge's finding that the husband was unable to qualify for life insurance was based on her assessment of his credibility -- a finding that "is close to immune from reversal on appeal except on the most compelling

Martel Enterprises v. City of Chicago

223 Ill. App. 3d 1028 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 15, 1991

The city also contends Martel was required to establish that the fireworks were legal as element of conversion. … The city did not establish that it was substantially prejudiced from the instruction.

American Indian Health etc. v. Kent

California Court of Appeal · Jun 19, 2018

The states’ immunity from suit is sometimes referred to as “Eleventh Amendment immunity.” … An important limit on the sovereign immunity principle was established in Ex parte Young (1908) 209 U.S. 123 [52 L.Ed. 714] (Young).