Case law

Koeppen v. Columbus

2015 Ohio 4463 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 27, 2015

Koeppen, unfortunately, did not testify clearly on that point. … Id. {¶ 14} Here, there is no dispute that the city established its immunity under the first tier of the immunity test.

Cheneau ex rel. Sanders v. Apostolic Outreach Center

529 So. 2d 149 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jul 12, 1988

Statutory Immunity LSA-R.S. 9:2791 provides as follows: A. … Second, the jurisprudence regarding attractive nuisances establishes clearly that the doctrine applies only if the child is too young to appreciate the danger involved. Smith, supra, 638 F.2d at 885 .

State v. Johnson

386 Wis. 2d 629 · Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · Mar 19, 2019

Harris , 2010 WI 79 , ¶32, 326 Wis. 2d 685 , 786 N.W.2d 409 , and a circuit court erroneously exercises its discretion when it relies upon "clearly irrelevant or improper factors," id. , ¶30. … Rather, the circuit court very clearly emphasized that Johnson had brought harmful narcotics across state lines and into a community that was being severely damaged by heroin use.

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.

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.

Kimball v. Davis

52 Mo. App. 194 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Dec 27, 1892

Louis, Missouri, under the statute of this state; that the assignee has qualified and taken charge of the assets of the corporation; that the plaintiff’s claim has been duly presented to assignee and by him allowed as a demand … with a condition precedent established by the statute, without compliance with which no incorporation could be effected.

Perry v. East Bay Regional Park District

45 Cal. Rptr. 3d 477 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 13, 2006

A defendant moving for summary judgment has the initial burden of showing either that one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established or that there is a complete defense. (§ 437c, subd. (p)(2).) … “sought to give a public entity and its employees specific qualified immunity from liability for injuries due to defined ‘hazardous recreational activity’ on public property.

X.M. v. Super. Ct.

California Court of Appeal · Sep 16, 2021

Chandler, supra, 538 U.S. 119, the Court held that, unlike a state, a municipal corporation qualifies as a “person” under the False Claims Act because the definition of “person” when the act was first passed in 1863 included … Suffice it to say, treble damages will be considered punitive when they apply to intentional misconduct or morally offensive behavior, and the Legislature has not clearly indicated an additional, compensatory purpose.

McGhee v. State

899 N.E.2d 35 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 2008

I am not convinced that Detective Cole’s statement qualified as an implied promise, or for that matter, a direct promise, or that it clearly rendered McGhee’s confession involuntary such that the trial court’s finding of … Given the nature of the statement at issue, in my view the trial court was fully justified in concluding that it did not constitute a direct promise of immunity or leniency.

Lake County Trust Co. v. Advisory Plan Commission

883 N.E.2d 124 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 20, 2008

Findings will only be set aside if they are clearly erroneous. Yanoff, 688 N.E.2d at 1262 . “Findings are clearly erroneous only when the record contains no facts to support them either directly or by inference.” Id. … A judgment is clearly erroneous if it applies the wrong legal standard to properly found facts. Id.

LeRay v. Bartholomew

871 So. 2d 492 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Mar 30, 2004

We find Kelty to be clearly distinguishable. … After a settlement with one qualified provider and dismissal of the other, the LPCF was added to the lawsuit.

Robert Rodriguez v. Scott Ginsburg

Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas) · Aug 26, 2019

However, when the traditional motion is clearly dispositive of issues in the motion, an appellate court may look to it first on those issues. See Kennedy, 2018 WL 3738091, at *3. … properly thought of as an immunity while conditional privileges are “true privileges.”

Beyer v. City of Joliet

392 Ill. App. 3d 81 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 2, 2009

Defendants argue that in order to fall within the Act’s limited exception to immunity, the plaintiff must qualify as a protected person by first obtaining an order of protection. … Therefore, we express no opinion as to whether plaintiff will ultimately be able to invoke the limitations on immunity provided by the Act.

People v. Toluca Lake Collective

California Court of Appeal · Sep 25, 2017

Substantial Compliance—Immunity Provision 6  Section 45.19.6.2 prohibits owning, establishing, operating, using, or permitting the establishment or operation of … The LAMC specifically mandated, inter alia, ICO registration “with the City Clerk” in order to qualify for immunity.

Seaside Properties, Inc. v. State Road Department

121 So. 2d 204 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jun 6, 1960

And it is established that a suit against the State Road Department is, in effect, a suit against the state. State ex rel. Davis v. Love, 99 Fla. 333 , 126 So. 374, 377 . … Section 337.19 clearly is not applicable here, as it authorizes suits "against the department on any claim under contract for work done; provided, that no suit sounding in tort shall be maintained against the department."

Governmental Interinsurance Exchange v. Judge

356 Ill. App. 3d 264 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 16, 2005

The above regulations clearly establish that, contrary to the dissent’s statement that “[i]t is incorrect to say that a broken yellow line is a passing zone” (356 Ill. … this immunity.

Walter Madern v. City of Pasadena

Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Mar 9, 2006

To establish liability against a municipality under a special defect theory, a plaintiff must plead and prove (1) that personal injury or death occurred; (2) that it was proximately caused by the negligence of a municipal … Exhibit C clearly showed that the manhole was not located in the roadway, which in fact supported the City and was also redundant of other evidence before the trial court.

Clark v. Campbell

2020 Ohio 3333 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 5, 2020

may be asserted to establish nonliability: *** (6) In addition to any immunity or defense referred to in division (A)(7) of this section and in circumstances not covered Ross App … The court held: ‘Common law agency principles, however, are clearly trumped by the Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act. See Reno v. City of Centerville, 2nd Dist.

Linda Jackson and Terry Jackson v. City of Baytown

Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · May 7, 2015

In their first issue, the Jacksons argue that Baytown is not protected from liability by sovereign immunity because it did not conclusively establish that Corrales was protected by official immunity. … Rather, the test of good faith is one of objective legal reasonableness—that is, whether a reasonable officer could have believed his or her conduct to be lawful in light of clearly established law and the information possessed

City of Houston v. Kenneth S. Jones

Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Aug 19, 2004

A plaintiff has the burden to establish a waiver of immunity from suit. Jones , 8 S.W.3d at 638. Immunity from suit can be waived only by legislative consent or constitutional amendment. Wichita Falls State Hosp. v. … To the contrary, the language of article II, section 1 of the City’s charter clearly and unambiguously waives the City’s immunity from suit for such claims.