Case law

Veller v. K.B.

2025 Ohio 687 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 28, 2025

[Veller] can prove no set of facts establishing an exception to immunity . . . .” {¶ 13} Finally, the court rejected the commissioners’ request to dismiss Veller’s permanent injunction count, finding that “while … Under the notice pleading requirement of Civ.R. 8(A), a plaintiff is not required to plead the legal theories of recovery that she is relying on or clearly and exactly plead every element of every claim.

Couture v. Board of Education

6 Conn. App. 309 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Feb 25, 1986

“The distinction between governmental and nongovernmental functions was clearly stated in Winchester v. … Whether the elements necessary to establish a claim of nuisance have been proven is, as the plaintiff claims, a question of fact which is ordinarily determined by the trier of fact. Filisko v.

Liner v. Brown

117 N.C. App. 44 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 15, 1994

This relationship is established only when the person with whom the child is placed intends to assume the status of a parent— by taking on the obligations incidental to the parental relationship, particularly that of support … Defendants, like foster parents, have a “unique responsibility clearly differing] from the supervisory functions of a natural parent.” Andrews v. County of Otsego, 446 N.Y.S.2d 169, 173 (1982).

Hamilton v. City of San Diego

217 Cal. App. 3d 838 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 30, 1990

Rather, by their terms Penal Code sections 847 and 836 relieve peace officers of liability so long as reasonable cause for arrest has been established. No other condition is placed upon the statutory immunity. … Briggs (1986) 475 U.S. 335 [ 89 L.Ed.2d 271 , 106 S.Ct. 1092 ], In that case the United States Supreme Court held that an officer had only qualified immunity in seeking an arrest warrant.

Rosie Vanarsdale, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Kadrian T. Vanarsdale and Vinson Vanarsdale v. City of Killeen and Andrew Pence

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Jul 15, 2004

The standards for reviewing a motion for summary judgment are well established: (1) the movant has the burden of showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law … Said failure was a proximate cause of the unnecessary escalation of force, which resulted in the clearly foreseeable shooting death of Kadrian T.

Regina Carson v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas, Inc., a Division of Health Care Service Corporation, Anita C. Johnson, Yvonne Sternadel A/K/A Vonnie S., Laura M. McClelland, Lauren Collins Reeser, Jane Cordray, Jason Ramirez, Jennifer Tracey, Christopher Flinn, and Teacher Retirement System of Texas

Texas Court of Appeals, 15th District · Aug 29, 2025

By challenging a governmental unit’s assertion of immunity, a plaintiff generally overcomes a governmental unit’s immunity defense by demonstrating that the Legislature has clearly and unambiguously waived immunity. … Carson argues she established a waiver of immunity through the UDJA and the APA. A.

Ex Parte Patman

1 Okla. Crim. 141 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Apr 15, 1908

It would seem to have long since been much too well established by the common law as well as our statutes that an indictment not void upon its face, regularly returned to and pending in a court having jurisdiction thereof … Where shall the party charged with a crime by indictment plead such immunity?

Michael Whittaker v. State of Indiana

33 N.E.3d 1063 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 20, 2015

[10] Five years after establishing the two-step analysis in Collins, our Supreme Court again dealt with Section 23 in Rondon v. State, 711 N.E.2d 506 (Ind. 1999). … [11] Similarly, we need not discuss whether Indiana Code section 1-1-5.5-21 passes the first prong of the Collins analysis because it clearly fails on the second prong.

City of Sunnyvale v. Superior Court

203 Cal. App. 3d 839 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 11, 1988

. *842 Discussion City contends that upon these facts the police officers owed no duty to Miss Ragan, or alternatively, if they did, they are immune from liability under the sovereign immunity provisions of the Government … The presence of a mandatory statutory duty clearly distinguishes Lopez from the situation of a police officer; as the decisions have pointed out, the absence of such an express statutory obligation prevents imposition of

Broc Rittenhouse v. Derek Dixon

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 16, 2024

immunity under federal law which has a different legal framework than qualified immunity under our state law. … Under federal law, qualified immunity is not available if a clearly established constitutional right is violated. Id. at 422.

Slowikowska v. San Diego Sheriff's Dept. CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Nov 20, 2015

Qualified Immunity Slowikowska contends the trial court also erred by finding Abbott was entitled to qualified immunity. … If the answer is no, the officer is entitled to qualified immunity. If the answer is yes, the court must proceed to the next question: whether the right was clearly established at the time the officer acted.

City of Denton v. Mathes

528 S.W.2d 625 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Oct 3, 1975

That court held that the Texas Tort Claims Act “provides for the notice requirements, and sec. 16 of the Act is clearly intended to be an exclusive notice requirement for purposes of bringing suit under the Act. . . . … Where the Act waives governmental immunity and no exclusion or express provision limits this immunity, the general law of this State will apply to the litigants in the same manner that it would apply to individuals.

Nevin Cooper-Keel v. Robert J Baker

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 13, 2025

Plaintiff then, promptly, sought unemployment benefits, which he ultimately received after 1 While not stated in the complaint or clearly explained elsewhere in this case, it is implied that defendant Baker is, perhaps … -2- defendants were entitled to summary disposition of the IIED and injurious-falsehood claims under MCR 2.116(C)(8) because plaintiff failed to establish that “he does

John Travis Chadwick v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia · Jul 1, 2021

Accordingly, we cannot say that the trial court erred in finding that Chadwick failed to meet his burden to establish his entitlement to pretrial immunity pursuant to OCGA § 16-3-24.2. See Gardhigh v. … In sum, “[t]o prevail on his immunity motion, [Chadwick] was required to establish his justification defense by a preponderance of the evidence.

Liberty Bank of Seattle, Inc. v. Henderson

75 Wash. App. 546 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 29, 1994

Clearly, RCW 30.12.040 provides that the supervisor must comply with the statutory requirements when exercising his or her formal authority to remove. … These statements appear to be relatively innocuous and may well not be defamatory, or may be protected by an absolute or qualified privilege.

the City of Cleburne v. RT General, LLC

Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco) · Dec 16, 2020

Section 271.152 of the Texas Local Government Code waives immunity to suit for qualifying local governmental entities for the purpose of adjudicating a claim for breach of contract entered into by the local governmental … And as such, we further conclude that RT General has plead sufficient facts to establish a waiver of the City’s immunity to suit under section 271.152 of the Texas Local Government Code. See TEX. LOC.

Tachelle Landin v. Department of Health and Human Services

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 13, 2024

Id. at 565.5 As part of the retroactivity analysis, a threshold question is whether the judicial decision clearly established a new principle of law. Id. … , set by the Legislature for one of the exceptions to governmental immunity.

McKinney v. City of Gainesville

814 S.W.2d 862 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Aug 23, 1991

This section clearly provides that “[a] municipality is liable under this chapter for damages arising from its governmental functions, ...” Id. (emphasis added). “Under this chapter” refers to the TTCA. … regarding the municipality being ‘liable under this chapter* requires, and was intended to require, that liability arising out of a governmental function (including those so classified in the section 101.0215(a) list) be established

Commonwealth v. Heller

80 Pa. Super. 366 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 2, 1923

It defined “veterinary medicine” to include veterinary surgery and *369 veterinary dentistry or any branch, thereof, and established a full and complete system of regulation of its practice. … The offense is a continuing one and does not gain the offender perpetual immunity and establish his right to violate the law after two years’ unlawful practice.

Shontai Tudor, Mother and Next Friend of J.T., a Minor v. Jefferson County Public Schools A/K/A Jefferson County Board of Education

Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Dec 16, 2021

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Generally, qualified official immunity is “immunity from tort liability afforded to public officers and employees for acts performed in the exercise of their discretionary functions.” … Citing this explanation of the doctrine of qualified official immunity, the circuit court concluded that Raho’s actions in attempting to subdue J.T. were “clearly discretionary” as stated in the findings in its prior order