Case law

Xuebiao Yao v. Chapman

287 Wis. 2d 445 · Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · Aug 31, 2005

The trial court's factual findings will be upheld unless clearly erroneous. Id. Whether those facts fulfill a particular legal standard such as negligence presents a question of law. Id. … He erroneously informed her that she would have five years to qualify for tenure, when UW rules actually mandate three years, with any extensions requiring approval. See id., ¶¶ 7, 9-10.

Fleming v. Vest

475 S.W.3d 576 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Nov 4, 2015

Our standard of review for summary judgment cases is well established. … On the contrary, this analysis in Thompson actually supports appellee’s contention that -the death of Scott Fleming qualified as a “medical injury” and therefore, fell under the | Kauspices of medical malpractice.

Mobley v. State

132 So. 3d 1160 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jan 2, 2014

Section 776.012(1), (2), clearly states where the danger of death, great bodily harm or the commission of a forcible felony is “imminent,” the use of deadly force is justified. … warrants immunity.”).

Klepinger v. Board of Comm.

143 Ind. App. 155 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 26, 1968

The Flowers case clearly demonstrates that a distinction should now be made between the governmental and proprietary functions of counties on the same basis as it is made for cities. … Fortune, 3 Fla. 19 , the Men of Devon decision was very clearly explained and distinguished.

Jenkins v. Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District

713 Utah Adv. Rep. 37 · Court of Appeals of Utah · Jul 19, 2012

Although “the term ‘governmental function’ was the operative phrase establishing the scope of governmental immunity,” the 1965 version of the UGIA did not define that term. See id. … In doing so, the legislature made it “crystal clear[] that all functions are covered under this governmental immunity” and that the new definition “establishes the legislature’s intent to apply governmental immunity broadly

United Federation of Teachers, Local 2 v. Board of Education of the City School District

298 A.D.2d 60 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 18, 2002

The starting point for our analysis is the principle that “[a]n arbitration award may not be vacated unless it violates a strong public policy, is irrational, or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the … [Candor Teachers Assn.], 42 NY2d 266, 272 ), the school board’s ultimate determination on a matter bearing directly on the maintenance of educational standards generally remains immune from arbitral review.

Wilson v. Sponable

81 A.D.2d 1 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 27, 1981

Decisional law dealing with mental patients and pris *8 oners clearly establishes that the State has a duty of supervision with respect to suicidal persons in its care and custody. … This observation refutes plaintiffs’ contention and establishes that the extent of public services for the care of suicidal prisoners is limited by the resources of the community.

Brown v. State

356 N.J. Super. 71 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 17, 2002

"A statute must `clearly and irremediably violate[]' the ban on special legislation to be invalidated." City of Jersey City v. Farmer, 329 N.J.Super. 27, 38 , 746 A. 2d 1018 (App. Div.) … We have said that: In order to establish a violation of Title II of the ADA by these defendants, a plaintiff must show: (1) that he or she "has a disability"; (2) "is otherwise qualified for the employment or benefit"; (3

Bruner v. Josephine County

240 Or. App. 276 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 29, 2010

See Friends of Yamhill County, 237 Or App at 177-78 (explaining the relevant factors used to establish a “common law vested right” under section 5(3) of Measure 49). … Whether zoning permissions have ripened to a degree sufficient to immunize the use from regulatory controls is tested by the “common law vested right” doctrine referenced in section 5(3) of Measure 49.

Burns v. Blair County

112 A.3d 690 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2015

We believe the Legislature has clearly precluded the imposition of liability on itself or the local agencies for acts of *699 third parties by its language of § 854.1 ... and that it has not seen fit to waive immunity for … Burns did not establish that the injury was caused by a defect in the County property. Under Mascaro , the government entity is not liable for the criminal acts of others.

Morris v. Krauszer's Food Stores, Inc.

300 N.J. Super. 529 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 9, 1997

The duty of the owner or possessor of land to protect business invitees from foreseeable harm is well established. … The poor lighting made the interior of the store too dark to be clearly visible.

Barrett v. Marathon Investment Corp.

268 Ga. App. 196 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Jun 29, 2004

Among other defenses, the sheriff answered that Marathon’s claim for the excess funds was barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity and that Marathon had failed to establish entitlement to the excess funds. … She claims, “the record clearly shows that [Marathon] filed its application on March 11, 2002.” These challenges to the interest award require review of the evidence presented at the hearing.

Klepinger v. Bd. of Comm. Co. of Miami

143 Ind. App. 178 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 26, 1968

The Flowers case clearly demonstrates that a distinction should now be made between the governmental and proprietary functions of counties on the same basis as it is made for cities. … Fortune, 3 Fla. 19 , the Men of Devon decision was very clearly explained and distinguished.

David Jones v. City of Port Arthur, Texas

Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont) · Nov 17, 2016

Despite these amendments, Jones has not pleaded facts to establish he made a qualifying report to the City Manager. … Jones argues on appeal that “[t]he issue and concern for the City Mechanic and [Jones were] that maintenance records (which clearly qualify as ‘government records’ within the meaning of § 37.01(2)(A) of the Penal Code)

Housing Authority of Newark v. Sagner

142 N.J. Super. 332 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 1, 1976

Its employees enjoy civil service status under guidelines established by the State. N.J.S.A. 55:14A-6.1. … In that case the National Housing Agency was held to be immune from the operation of a local zoning ordinance. That agency was clearly a federal one and not a state one. Leslie Miller, Inc. v.

Spindletop MHMR v. Barbara Beauchamp, on Behalf of Alissa Humphrey

Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont) · Feb 26, 2004

Non-use of "ulcer preventing devices" is not use of tangible personal property within the statutory waiver, and allegations of negligent care are not sufficient to establish waiver of immunity. … Such a result would be tantamount to abolishing governmental immunity, contrary to the limited waiver the Legislature clearly intended.

Robson v. Penn Hills School District

63 Pa. Commw. 250 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 16, 1981

Exceptions to governmental immunity. … immunity by the holding in Ayala v.

Barry v. USAA

98 Wash. App. 199 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 9, 1999

Even privileged communications may be discoverable, however, if they qualify for the fraud exception. Escalante, 49 Wn. App. at 394 . … Washington courts recognize no work product immunity for documents prepared in the regular course of *208 business. Escalante, 49 Wn. App. at 395 .

Nickon v. City of Princeton

Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 24, 2007

Defendant contends the Medicare payment does not qualify as a collateral source under Illinois law. … Defendant’s instruction addressed statutory municipal immunity, as defined in section 3–102 of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (745 ILCS 10/3–102 (West 2002)).

City & County of San Francisco v. Flying Dutchman Park, Inc.

18 Cal. Rptr. 3d 532 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 9, 2004

Flying Dutchman’s Privileges and Immunities Claim Relying on Saenz v. … In making its claim, Flying Dutchman poses the inequity under the state’s privileges and immunities clause as follows: “The differing parking tax burdens put on hotel occupants and residents offend the privileges and immunities