Case law

American Bldgs. Co. v. Kokomo Grain Co., Inc.

506 N.E.2d 56 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 13, 1987

This future reference to the trial clearly limits application of this provision to experts retained for the purposes of the pending litigation. … As stated in 8 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2024; "In order to come within the qualified immunity from discovery created by Rule 26(b)(8) three tests must be satisfied. The material must be: "1.

Village of Lake in the Hills v. Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc.

160 Ill. App. 3d 427 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 11, 1987

In none of those cases, however, was the issue of sovereign immunity from injunction damages raised or discussed. No precedent is established on points neither argued nor discussed in an opinion (Sanner v. … The language of section 2 — 208 of the Immunity Act, in conjunction with the language of section 2 — 109, clearly shields the villages from liability for institution of litigation, and we see no reason to exclude the seeking

City of Tampa v. Davis

226 So. 2d 450 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Sep 17, 1969

Town of Cocoa Beach, [2] it was widely assumed [3] that, given an agent's negligence and proximate cause, *452 municipal liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior was established without immunity or limitation ( … In that case the city was held immune because acting in its governmental capacity (the immunity concept still obtained at that time); in other respects that case is consistent with our analysis here of the Modlin case. [11

State v. Simmons

188 Conn. App. 813 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Mar 26, 2019

‘‘It is well established that [a] prosecutor may not appeal to the emotions, passions and prejudices of the jurors. . . . … This deter- mination clearly requires a review of the plain error claim presented in light of the record.

Eagan v. Chicago Transit Authority

240 Ill. App. 3d 784 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 23, 1992

Section 4 — 102 of the Act reads: “Neither a local public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service or, if police protection service … Thus, plaintiff’s complaint clearly meets requirements (1) and (2) above, since it alleges that defendant was both aware of the danger and failed to respond to it.

Toliver v. Commonwealth

38 Va. App. 27 · Court of Appeals of Virginia · Apr 2, 2002

Jones, an expert qualified to testify regarding drug distribution, testified that the items found on Toliver's person were not consistent with personal drug use. … Commonwealth argues that the legislature intended no such geographical limitation on the terms of the statute and that reading into the statute such a limitation is "patently ridiculous" and would create a "right to flight," immunizing

Bert Hensley, in His Official and Individual Capacities v. John Adam Harkins, by and Through Guardian and Conservator John Harkins

Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Dec 8, 2022

Whether qualified immunity extends to an individual turns on whether their actions, or inactions, were discretionary or ministerial. Id. … Instead, Cruse’s general duty to look out for the safety of the students was clearly discretionary in nature, and she, too, is clearly entitled to qualified immunity.

Green v. N.B.S., Inc.

180 Md. App. 639 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 2, 2008

Cline, 384 Md. 245 , 863 A.2d 297 (2004), the Court was called upon to decide whether “the Maryland Tort Claims Act grants qualified immunity to state personnel for tortious ads or omissions, within the scope of the state … The Lee Court said: While this Court has not, until today, directly decided whether intentional torts and constitutional torts are covered by the Maryland Tort Claims Act, thereby granting state personnel qualified immunity

Cardinal v. Santee Pita, Inc.

234 Cal. App. 3d 1676 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 10, 1991

At the same time this “sweeping civil immunity” (Strang v. … No other exceptions to this immunity exist.” (Id. at p. 728.) Cantor v.

King v. Schaeffer

123 Ga. App. 531 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Mar 4, 1971

It is perhaps an understatement to say that none of the decisions by our appellate courts in this case can be construed to have established "the law of the case.” … Likewise, the foreword showed clearly that the authority to vary the rules remained solely in the corporation to suspend, modify or cancel in whole or in part the procedure with respect to employment and separation of employees

Boise Cascade Corp. v. State Board of Forestry

164 Or. App. 114 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 10, 1999

The form of the remedy did not qualify the right. It rested upon the Fifth Amendment. Statutory recognition was not necessary. A promise to pay was not necessary. … Congress has the authority to subject it to suit in federal court. 9 “9 The Solicitor General urges that the prohibitory nature of the Fifth Amendment * * * combined with principles of sovereign immunity, establishes that

Evita Tolu v. James Reid, Ph.D., James Reid, Ph.D., LLC, Jennifer Webbe Van Luven, Fitzgibbons Psychological Associates, and Elaine Pudlowski

Missouri Court of Appeals · Dec 28, 2021

Edwards v, Gerstein, 237 8.W.3d 580, 381-82 (Mo, bane 2007) (holding that absolute quasi-judicial immunity was superseded by section 331,100.5, which extends qualified immunity to members of the Missouri Board of Chiropractic … Luven to provide reunification counseling for the children clearly establish that [Tolu] was not [] Van Luven's client or patient.

Dubaskas v. Commonwealth

81 A.3d 167 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 9, 2013

The Supreme Court further explained that “the exception to sovereign immunity pertaining to Board-of-Claims jurisdiction defines the extent of the Commonwealth’s statutory exception from sovereign immunity for claims arising … [[Image here]] While more general clarification of the relationship between sovereign immunity and jurisdiction may be appropriate in the arena at large, for present purposes, we regard sovereign immunity as a jurisdictional

Mitchell v. City of Trenton

163 N.J. Super. 287 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 31, 1978

Plaintiffs presented proofs at trial before the jury which established that Mrs. Mitchell fell at the curb, within the lines of the crosswalk. Mrs. … The substance of his testimony clearly supported the conditions for immunity under N.J.S.A. 59:2-3(d).

Josue Francisco Vazquez v. State

Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Nov 3, 2005

Appellant further notes that Dunning’s testimony was provided in exchange for the State’s promise of immunity and the State’s promise to remain neutral on a habeas petition filed in an unrelated criminal case. … The State argues that Dunning’s statement qualifies as an excited utterance or a present sense impression and thus is excepted from the rule barring hearsay.

Kenton County Public Parks Corp. v. Modlin

901 S.W.2d 876 · Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Apr 7, 1995

Kenton County PPC was established in 1966 and since that time has provided recreational facilities for the residents of Kenton County. … The Bems opinion clearly points out that, “the term ‘municipal corporation’ is not limited to a city, and it is not only a city that ‘is no longer immune from suit for tort liability’....” Id. at 331-332 .

Edward Rudolph Turnbull, IV v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline, Daniela Grosz, Daniel Martinez, Seana Willing, John S. Brannon, Amanda Kates, Jenny Hodgkins, and the Board of Directors of the State Bar of Texas, Cindy v. Tisdale, Steve Benesh, Laura Gibson, Kennon Lily Wooten

Texas Court of Appeals, 15th District · Feb 3, 2025

Both are entitled to sovereign immunity. … As to the CFLD, Turnbull’s allegations are clearly frivolous.

People v. Harpool

155 Cal. App. 3d 877 · California Court of Appeal · May 15, 1984

I Defendant’s first point of error rests with the grant of immunity given Willie Star. … Additionally, we cannot ignore the fact that the immunity agreement clearly and unambiguously specified that “the testimony given by Mr. Star [at the preliminary hearing] will not be used in any way against Mr.

Lake County Juvenile Court v. Swanson

671 N.E.2d 429 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 16, 1996

The movant bears the burden of establishing the propriety of summary judgment, and all facts and inferences to be drawn therefrom are viewed in a light most favorable to the non-movant. Ramon, supra. I. … Thus, Swanson clearly appreciated the difference between official and personal capacity lawsuits.

Jug's Catering, Inc. v. Indiana Department of Workforce Development, Unemployment Insurance Board

714 N.E.2d 207 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 29, 1999

It does not grant perpetual immunity. Id. … may be subject to unemployment tax liability must comply; it is merely an option afforded to those who do qualify.”