Case law

Cherry v. Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency

153 Pa. Commw. 210 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 1, 1993

PHEAA’s determination of what constitutes a “qualified applicant” is clearly within its scope of responsibility and is, for the reasons discussed above, not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, we affirm. … Definitions The following words and phrases when used in this act shall have the meanings given to them in this section unless the context clearly indicates otherwise: "Qualified applicant.”

Rodriguez v. Inglewood Unified School District

186 Cal. App. 3d 707 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 22, 1986

,]” add nothing to establish a dangerous condition. … A reading of the statute clearly shows it also has a prospective application.

Anthonette Todaro, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of Blake Edward Todaro v. the City of Houston

Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · Apr 20, 2004

When determining whether the Legislature has clearly and unambiguously waived immunity from suit, we generally resolve any ambiguity in favor of retaining immunity. Id. at 697 . … City of Houston , A Clearly [section] 101.061 intended to provide for abolishment of governmental immunity without causing havoc. @ 839 S.W.2d 95, 99 (Tex. App. C Houston [14th Dist.] 1992, writ denied).

Madden v. Jeffes

85 Pa. Commw. 414 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 5, 1984

Although the record does not clearly establish exactly what “suspension” of PAL activities entailed, we gather that the prison officials prohibited inmates from conducting any corporate *416 business, but did not actually … Petitioners must establish that they have a clear legal right, that the respondents have a corresponding legal duty, and that there is no other adequate or appropriate remedy at law. Francis v.

UNIVERSITY OF TX SW. MED. CTR. v. Gentilello

260 S.W.3d 221 · Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas) · Jul 18, 2008

Sovereign immunity includes two distinct principles, immunity from suit and immunity from liability. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 224 . … However, cases decided under the tort claims act are clearly distinguishable because of the specific waiver of immunity from suit found in that act.

Clein v. Rankin County School District

78 So. 3d 384 · Court of Appeals of Mississippi · Jan 17, 2012

from liability since the actions of RCSD and its employees were at all material times discretionary functions subject to the immunity under section 11 — 46—9—(l)(d); and (4) RCSD is immune from any premises-liability claims … Clein attempts to distinguish Cov-ington from the present case, and he claims that the supreme court’s ruling clearly applies to a limited set of facts involving coaches, athletes, and extra-curricular activities.

DiFoggio v. County of Will Division of Transportation

257 N.E.3d 608 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 25, 2024

¶ 14 If a plaintiff cannot establish an element of his cause of action, summary judgment for the defendant is proper. Id. … Therefore, while Gieske has personal knowledge about what constitutes construction, he is not qualified to testify about what constitutes maintenance. See Kim v. Mercedes-Benz, U.S.A., Inc., 353 Ill.

Mahoney v. Lensink

17 Conn. App. 130 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Nov 29, 1988

In analyzing the statute at issue, well established rules of statutory construction control. … When the state waives its sovereign immunity by statute, “a party attempting to sue under the legislative exception must come clearly within its provisions . . . . ” Berger, Lehman Associates, Inc. v.

Kollar v. Lozier

286 N.J. Super. 462 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 17, 1996

Clearly, Kollar posed a threat not only to himself but also to others. We do not read General Order 83-3 to prohibit a pursuit in this situation. … However, in this case its employees, Lozier and Dawson, are immune from liability pursuant to N.J.S.A. 59:5-2b(2) and the Borough is entitled to the same immunity.

McMillan v. Westport Insurance

19 Mass. L. Rptr. 55 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Dec 12, 2004

Id. 4 Some courts grant absolute immunity to opinion work product but only qualified immunity to ordinary work product where a party may overcome the privilege by a showing of substantial need. … Even those courts that are reluctant to grant absolute immunity to opinion work product state that discovery of such materials may be granted in only rare situations.

Martinez v. CITIES OF GOLD CASINO

146 N.M. 735 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Apr 24, 2009

immunity. … Having previously established that the immunity of tribal entities is possessed independently by each entity, Defendant’s statement amply demonstrates that although PPGC and the Pueblo are immune from suit in this matter,

Lucero v. Valdez

180 Ariz. 313 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Apr 14, 1994

This is because “the state of the family domicile ... has the primary responsibility for establishing and regulating the incidents of the family relationship____” Id. at 564 , 447 P.2d at 256 (quoting Emery v. … We find rather that, *318 because California law clearly controlled, the Utah court had no reason to resolve what it had previously defined as an unsettled question of Utah law. .

Texas Department of Public Safety v. Robert Christopher Callaway

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Oct 17, 2024

To establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination, a plaintiff must show: (1) he has a disability; (2) he was qualified for the job; and (3) he suffered an adverse employment action because of his disability. … Applicable Law To establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination, the plaintiff must show that he: (1) has a qualifying disability; (2) is qualified for the job; and (3) suffered an adverse employment

Conn Construction Co. v. Ohio Department of Transportation

14 Ohio App. 3d 90 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 13, 1983

The fact that the referee did not thereafter make any “substantive” changes does not diminish the validity of the report or establish any prejudice to Conn. … The referee clearly has the authority to admit and exclude evidence. Civ.

City of Vinita Park Ex Rel. Board of Directors v. Girls Sheltercare, Inc.

664 S.W.2d 256 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jan 10, 1984

In the instant case the leasing of the premises pursuant to the statutory authority for the county and juvenile court to establish a group home is a governmental function (use) and thereby immune from the City of Vinita Park … Louis County, 451 S.W.2d 107 (Mo.1970) establishes that St. Louis County can be immune from municipal regulation by zoning ordinances. In that case, St.

City of Cleveland v. Berger

91 Ohio App. 3d 102 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 12, 1993

Berger has not established the applicability of preemption in this case. We overrule his sixth assignment of error. Berger also claims federal governmental immunity from prosecution. … Berger clearly had a beneficial interest in the operation of the apartment building.

Rakaric v. Croatian Cultural Club

76 A.D.2d 619 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Aug 11, 1980

The conclusion, however, rests simply on the proposition that plaintiff has failed by her allegations to establish that the relationship to this State was sufficient to displace the normal rule that the lex loci delictus … .69 "In short, the immunity of charities is clearly in full retreat; and it may be predicted with some confidence that the end of the next two decades will see its virtual disappearance from American law. * * * " 67.

Adrian Robinson v. Dwight Brannon And Lynetta Freeman A/K/A Lennetta Freeman

Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · May 20, 2010

Accordingly, immunity afforded by this statute requires that the person asserting immunity establish that (1) he or she is a professional employee of a school district, (2) he or she is acting incident to or within the scope … Section 22.0517 clearly provides that “the employee (party) is entitled to recover” if he or she is found to be immune from liability. See id.

Beaver v. Coatesville Area School District

845 A.2d 955 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 26, 2004

“Preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer *958 should be'sustained only where the pleadings are clearly insufficient to establish a right to relief. … As we stated above, we agree with Appellants that the facts as set forth in the complaint do not establish that Appellant was an employee of an independent contractor.

Greenberg, M. v. McGraw, N.

2017 Pa. Super. 136 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 5, 2017

An important element which must be established before this immunity can apply, however, is whether or not the actions (Footnote Continued Next Page) - 14 - J-A05022-17 was sued … Clearly such statements fit squarely within the absolute privilege….”).