Case law

Vicki L. Mobley v. State of Arkansas

Court of Appeals of Tennessee · Jan 7, 2019

The Court added, “It may be wise policy, as a matter of harmonious interstate relations, for States to accord each other immunity or to respect any established limits on liability. They are free to do so.” Id. at 426. … established limits on liability.”).

Little v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice

177 S.W.3d 624 · Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Aug 31, 2005

(stating that “[t]o prove pretext the plaintiff may show that he is clearly better qualified ... but he may also prove pretext by other evidence”). … that plaintiff proffered no evidence comparative in nature as to whether he was clearly better qualified).

Paley v. BANK OF AMERICA NATIONAL TRUST AND SAVINGS ASS'N

159 Cal. App. 2d 500 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 18, 1958

to abridge the privileges and immunities of the citizen. … to abridge the privileges and immunities of the citizen ...”

Larison v. PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY DIST. NO. 1

998 S.W.2d 192 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Aug 17, 1999

A public entity is generally immune from tort liability under sovereign immunity. See, e.g., Page v. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer Dist., 377 S.W.2d 348, 352-53 (Mo.1964). … Clearly, there is no evidence that the operator or other Water District employees were actually aware the Larisons’ meter lid was not properly secured.

Dobransky, E. v. EQT Production Company

2020 Pa. Super. 189 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 11, 2020

Our scope of review of a trial court’s order granting or denying summary judgment is plenary, and our standard of review is clear: the trial court’s order will be reversed only where it is established that … Atlas filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that it qualified -4- J-A05012-20 as a statutory employer under Section 302(a) of the Act and, therefore, was immune from tort

Ernest T. Jones v. Mississippi Institutions of Higher Learning

264 So. 3d 9 · Court of Appeals of Mississippi · Aug 14, 2018

That is, section 11-46-5 provides a limited waiver of sovereign immunity for damages arising from such a breach. ¶53. We qualify our holding in one respect. … Generalized or conclusory assertions of prejudice are insufficient to establish that actual prejudice will result from the amendment. See, e.g., Middle Atl. Utils. Co. v. S.M.W. Dev.

Bourgeois v. GREEN INDUSTRIES

841 So. 2d 902 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Feb 25, 2003

The purpose of the intentional act exception is to prevent a person granted immunity, who intentionally inflicts an injury on an employee, from using the immunity to protect himself against the consequences of his own "willful … Avondale and its executive officers assert that a claim for medical monitoring is a new cause of action and that the theory established in Walls v.

Fulmer v. State, Department of Wildlife & Fisheries

2010 La.App. 4 Cir. 0088 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Oct 6, 2010

authority to assert immunity for specific types of claims. … The holdings in the other cases of the Alden trilogy are clearly based upon the concept that Florida, like Maine, had not waived its sovereign immunity and, therefore, on the facts was not subject to suit by private citizens

Bates v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Comm'n

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 2, 2024

LANDMARKS COMM’N Opinion of the Court taken as true, are sufficient to establish a waiver by the State of governmental immunity. Fullwood, 250 N.C. … In such cases, “[b]ecause malice encompasses intent, . . . if a party alleges an intentional tort claim, the doctrine of qualified immunity does not immunize public officials . . . from suit in their individual capacities

Brookhouser v. State of California

10 Cal. App. 4th 1665 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 19, 1992

We shall conclude that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the failure to provide information caused Brookhouser’s injuries, and that in any event Farr and the state were as a matter of law immune from liability … . *1681 Brookhouser argues, essentially preliminarily, that Farr and the state should not have been permitted to raise the immunity (1) because the First Appellate District’s opinion on the first appeal implicitly established

Prairie View a & M University and Bill Turner D/B/A Turner Mechanical Services v. Eddie Ray Brooks

Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · Oct 20, 2005

At the close of the evidence, the University again urged the issue of sovereign immunity, arguing in a motion for a directed verdict that the evidence failed to establish a waiver of immunity under a premises theory. … The TTCA A does not waive sovereign immunity for all negligence claims against governmental units. @ Id. There will accordingly be cases in which a state entity was clearly negligent but will not be held liable.

Norton v. SMC Building, Inc.

156 N.C. App. 564 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 18, 2003

“Ambiguity in the terms of the policy is not established simply because the parties contend for differing meanings to be given to the language. … The *570 disputed exclusionary provision is not ambiguous and, when construed and enforced according to its plain meaning, it clearly encompasses the construction defects plaintiffs allege resulted from the County’s negligent

D'AMATO v. Superior Court

167 Cal. App. 4th 861 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 21, 2008

Petitioner’s Indictment Is Largely Based on Legislative Activity The district attorney contends none of the alleged acts underlying petitioner’s indictment qualify for legislative immunity. We disagree. … The attorneys to whom Tanenbaum directed the memo never provided an opinion letter, explaining they did not feel qualified to respond.

Kenson Louima v. State of Florida

175 So. 3d 893 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Sep 9, 2015

Notably, however, the state never argued that the DOC records independently established that Louima qualified for PRR sentencing. … Specifically, prior to Louima’s testimony, the trial court indicated that the state had failed to establish that Louima qualified for a PRR sentence.

Gooslin v. State

132 Md. App. 290 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 31, 2000

U.S. 1 , 108 S.Ct. 849 , 99 L.Ed.2d 1 (1988) (a statutory classification reviewed under the rational basis standard enjoys a strong presumption of constitutionality and will be invalidated only if the classification is clearly … claim is one for which the State and its units have waived immunity under subsections (a) and (b) of this section; (ii) a judgment or settlement has been entered granting the claimant damages to the full amount established

David Hazan, Inc. v. Tax Appeals Tribunal

152 A.D.2d 765 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 6, 1989

The arrival of the goods at foreign destinations is clearly established. The delivery of the packages to the airline for a departing passenger committed the goods for export. … The transac *769 tions were immune from State taxation. The determination should be annulled and the petition granted.

Schrantz v. Luancing

218 N.J. Super. 434 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 21, 1986

Baer was found qualified to testify as a medical expert his testimony may not be struck. … Baer's testimony was immunized from a motion to strike so that whatever the testimony elicited on cross-examination it would only effect Dr.

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.

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