Case law

Vergeson v. Kitsap County

145 Wash. App. 526 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 1, 2008

No matter how reasonable, Vergeson’s unspoken expectation that her quashed warrant would be removed from the databases does not qualify as an express assurance for purposes of establishing this special relationship exception … Although Vergeson does not argue that she established privity with the County through the judge issuing the warrant-quashing order, we note that a judge’s acts, performed within his or her employment capacity, are immune

American Tobacco Co. v. Superior Court

208 Cal. App. 3d 480 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 6, 1989

As indicated, the bare words of section 1714.45 are consistent with plaintiffs’ position: The statute clearly states that a manufacturer or seller will not be liable if the product meets the conditions set forth in subdivisions … .3d 121 eliminated doubt, if there was any, that the new statute left untouched the rule, reaffirmed in Cronin , that a plaintiff in a products liability case seeking recovery upon the theory of strict liability need not establish

Harris v. Beth

518 S.W.3d 126 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Mar 29, 2017

Harris responded by denying the allegations in their entirety and by affirmatively pleading qualified immunity. … We affirm the circuit court’s decision because Harris failed to establish a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment.

PG&E Texas Pipeline, L.P. v. Harris County Flood Control District & Ramex Construction Co., Inc.

Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Aug 12, 2004

Thus, as movant on the affirmative defense of sovereign immunity, HCFCD has the burden to establish all the essential elements of the defense as a matter of law. Montgomery v. … Once a movant establishes sovereign immunity as a matter of law, the burden of production shifts to the non-movant to establish a waiver of immunity. See Medrano v. City of Pearsall , 989 S.W.2d 141, 144 (Tex. App.

Green v. City of Livermore

117 Cal. App. 3d 82 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 19, 1981

’s decision “regarding whether to investigate or not may have been a discretionary decision ..., but once he decided to investigate, any negligence on his part in his ministerial performance *88 of the investigation was clearly … As in Clemente, supra, at page 379, neither the discretionary immunity of section 820.2 nor the more specific discretionary immunity of failure to enforce a statute (§§ 821, 818.2) immunized the City from the legal consequences

Alejo v. City of Alhambra

89 Cal. Rptr. 2d 768 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 27, 1999

Therefore, the necessary linkage between the mandatory duty and the injury is established for pleading purposes. The failure to investigate was clearly a breach of duty. … Alicia T., however, is clearly distinguishable from the present case.

TML Intergovernmental Employee Benefits Pool v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America

144 S.W.3d 600 · Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Jun 10, 2004

Governmental immunity encompasses two principles: immunity from suit and immunity from liability. Texas Natural Res. Conservation Comm’n v. IT-Davy, 74 S.W.3d 849, 853 (Tex.2002). … -Austin 2004, pet. filed) (“It is well established that the State’s initiation of suit is an exception to sovereign immunity from suit clearly recognized by Texas courts.”).

Roberts v. Switzerland of Ohio Local School Dist.

2014 Ohio 78 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 7, 2014

would dissolve immunity. … Clearly, the complaint alleges a negligent act, the instruction by the Board’s agent that it was safe for Roberts to stand in an area that was not, in fact, safe.

Daisy (Dee) Marie Kelso and James Douglas Kelso v. Gonzales Healthcare Systems D/B/A Memorial Hospital

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · May 13, 2004

However, they failed to clearly state such a claim. Consequently, there is no waiver of immunity from suit, and the trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction of the claims against the appellees. See Snelling v. … These facts, had they been included in the Kelsos’ petition, would have been sufficient to establish jurisdiction by waiving sovereign immunity under the tort claims act. See id.

Rodriguez v. New Mexico Dep't of Workforce Solutions

1 N.M. Ct. App. 786 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Apr 19, 2012

. § 1983, a defense of qualified immunity, and an issue of whether the 3 plaintiff was deprived of a property interest without due process of law when his employment was terminated … The Human Rights Act forbids an employer to discriminate against “any person otherwise qualified[.]” Section 28-1-7(A).

McIntosh v. McElveen

893 So. 2d 986 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Feb 2, 2005

To reverse a fact finder's determination, the appellate court must find from the record that a reasonable factual basis does not exist for the finding of the trial court and that the record establishes that the finding is … clearly wrong.

Students for Concealed Carry On Campus, LLC v. Regents of the University of Colorado

280 P.3d 18 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Apr 15, 2010

If the statutory language is unambiguous, we need not resort to interpretive statutory construction rules because we presume that the General Assembly meant what it clearly said. Id. … Article IX, section 12 establishes "The Regents of the University of Colorado" as "a body corporate."

Glazer v. Crescent Wallcoverings, Inc.

215 Ga. App. 492 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Dec 5, 1994

Nelson, 251 Ga. 475 ( 306 SE2d 290 ) (1983), in which the Supreme Court held that the parties’ joint liability did not have to be actually established by a judgment for contribution to be possible, and that the plaintiffs … And if that motion for summary judgment had been granted, the product defendants clearly would not have been able to pursue contribution from landlord. Cf. Shackelford v. Green, 180 Ga.

Hutchinson v. City of Sacramento

17 Cal. App. 4th 791 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 2, 1993

However, due to the significant increase in traffic flow on H Street since 1973, and the Draft Report indication of a significantly high accident rate on the street, a [ministerial] duty clearly arises at this point to review … “[A]s applied to the present case, once the state was put on notice that the June 1984 design for which the state had immunity nevertheless produced a dangerous condition, the immunity continued only for a reasonable time

Bass v. City of New York

38 A.D.2d 407 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 3, 1972

It had assumed the burden of protection by establishing a police force. It did not fulfill its obligation by assignment of one man to provide such protection.” … On the contrary, the testimony of the plaintiff’s witnesses clearly established that the policy of remaining outside the project unless otherwise requested was followed with respect to all buildings in the area and that the

Bowden Building Corp. v. Tennessee Real Estate Commission

15 S.W.3d 434 · Court of Appeals of Tennessee · Jul 20, 1999

immunity,” and because Bowden *438 “failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 .” … They further contend that they possess qualified immunity from liability in their individual capacities as to Bowden’s damages claims because their conduct did not violate any clearly established constitutional or statutory

Jackson v. Chicago Firefighters Union

160 Ill. App. 3d 975 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 8, 1987

Just as article IV of the Tort Immunity Act specifically provides immunity to police personnel, article V of the Act specifically provides immunity to fire fighters for the “failure to establish a fire department or *** to … Clearly, the defendants at bar were not responsible for the fire to the Ridgeway premises. Instead, similar to the situations in Galuszynski and Marvin, plaintiffs at bar merely sought protection which was not provided.

Scott v. City of Greeley

931 P.2d 525 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Dec 12, 1996

The following facts were established at a bench trial. … The issue of sovereign immunity is one of subject matter jurisdiction, and we apply the clearly erroneous standard in reviewing the trial court’s factual determination of the issue. DiPaolo v.

Gore v. State

24 Okla. Crim. 394 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Sep 22, 1923

Stat. 1921, which says that the affidavit “must set forth the facts tending to establish * * * probable cause,” etc. … Concerning the rights of the people, safeguarded by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution, to be immune from unreasonable searches and seizures, and the immunity in a criminal case from being compelled to be

Kachikwu Illoh, M.D. v. Damita Carroll and Karen Butler, Individually and as Representatives of the Estate of James Carroll

Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · Aug 5, 2010

Election of Remedies under the Texas Tort Claims Act The Texas Tort Claims Act (“TTCA”) establishes a limited waiver of immunity for certain suits against governmental entities. … Clearly, suit can only be brought against a governmental entity when there is a waiver of immunity from suit. See Wichita Falls State Hosp. v.