Case law

Mintz v. Village of Pepper Pike

57 Ohio App. 2d 185 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 22, 1978

Indeed, to prevail, this court has concluded that a litigant must: “clearly establish, in substance, that the legislative body could not have reasonably believed the necessity of regulation in the public interest outweighed … Taking all of the relevant factors and circumstances into account, we conclude that the appellees failed to establish heyond fair debate that the ordinance was clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, having no relation to publie

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.

Shoemaker v. Community Action Organization, 06ca3121 (7-16-2007)

2007 Ohio 3708 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 16, 2007

. {¶ 4} The defendants filed an answer that consisted of a general denial and several affirmative defenses but they did not raise the defense of qualified privilege. {¶ 5} Discovery consisted of one set of interrogatories … Interestingly, the memorandum in support of defendants' motion also briefly alluded to the defense of qualified immunity, even though the defendants had not raised it in their answer. {¶ 7} Shoemaker filed a memorandum contra

Town of Flower Mound, Texas, Harlan Jefferson, Town Manager and Charles Springer, Assistant Town Manager/Chief Financial Officer v. Rembert Enterprises, Inc.

Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth) · Mar 1, 2012

When a governmental entity such as Flower Mound enters into a contract, it waives immunity from liability but does not waive immunity from suit unless the legislature has clearly and unambiguously waived the governmental … sought would have the effect of establishing a right to relief against the governmental entity for which governmental immunity has not been waived.

In re Rouss

162 A.D. 496 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 15, 1914

Such *502 an act clearly tended to pervert or obstruct the administration of justice and the due administration of the law. … his testimony for the People would render him immune.

Travis County, Texas v. Pelzel & Associates, Inc.

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Oct 19, 2000

Hunt County , 249 S.W. 831, 835 (Tex. 1923) ("disallowance of the claim by [the commissioners] court clearly gives the right to bring suit"). … The concurring opinion today complains that the presentment statute does not clearly waive a county's immunity.

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.

Marvin v. Board of Education

Connecticut Appellate Court · Jul 9, 2019

of governmental immunity. … [W]hether a partic- ular plaintiff comes within a cognizable class of foresee- able victims for purposes of this narrowly drawn exception to qualified immunity ultimately is a question of law for the courts, in that it is

Gilbert v. Case

3 A.D.2d 930 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 20, 1957

The opinion of the Special Term clearly indicates such an intent. … If appellant, a foreign corporation, were to be rendered immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of this State it would also be rendered immune in this State from the very expense for which the statutorily prescribed security

People v. Martinez

62 Ill. App. 3d 7 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 13, 1978

According to McCabe, defendant was offered such immunity but rejected it. … Considered as a whole, the evidence adduced by the State clearly defined the means, opportunity and motive for the Raymond homicide and serves to establish defendant’s role therein.

Jones v. MetroHealth Med. Ctr.

2016 Ohio 4858 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 7, 2016

By Stewart’s reckoning, if the state has waived immunity from suit, political subdivisions can have no immunity of their own because their immunity is based on the state’s immunity. {¶12} Stewart’s argument is essentially … immune from civil liability is a question of law.

McKray v. State of California

74 Cal. App. 3d 59 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 14, 1977

But it is undisputed that the line marking the left side of the outer lane was clearly visible. Yet Laspada crossed the entire shoulder, so that his car’s right side was more than 22 feet from the obvious lane line. … The record conclusively establishes that Laspada’s negligence was the sole cause of plaintiff’s injury. In light of this holding, we need not discuss the state’s exemption under design immunity. Judgment affirmed.

Deisha Shamblin v. Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

Court of Appeals of Georgia · Oct 31, 2019

App. 607, 609 (2) (794 SE2d 262) (2016) (“For an employer to be held liable for negligent supervision, there must be sufficient evidence to establish that the employer reasonably knew or should have known of an employee’s … The general purpose of the charitable immunity doctrine is that a qualifying organization’s charitable assets should not be depleted by subjection to liability for negligence and that it would be against public

John Charles Alexander AKA Bobby Ray Miller v. State

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Jul 8, 2011

Sovereign immunity includes two distinct principles: immunity from suit and immunity from liability. Texas Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 224 (Tex. 2004) (citing Texas Dep’t of Transp. v. … Garcia, 253 S.W.3d 653, 660 (Tex. 2008) (agreeing that TCHRA “clearly and unambiguously waive[d] immunity”); see also Tex. Lab. Code Ann.

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

Higgins v. Board of Education

101 Ill. App. 3d 1003 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 17, 1981

Rather, two established teaching positions, one in French and one in English communications, were filled by nontenured teachers. The appellant was qualified to fill neither of these established positions. … That is clearly the law, but tenured teachers do not have the right to object to the incidental assignment of a single course to established teaching positions which they are unqualified to teach, thereby fractionalizing

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.

Mazurek v. Town of East Haven

99 Conn. App. 795 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Mar 6, 2007

The court stated that a proposed witness, a fellow engineer at the same office as the hospitalized engineer who made the report, was not qualified to testify as to the medical condition of the author of the report. … In this case, insufficient evidence was offered to establish the predicate for admission, namely, that the professional engineer was physically disabled “to such an extent that such person is no longer actively engaged in

Betts v. Department of Revenue

78 Ill. App. 3d 102 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 18, 1979

As such it is barred by sovereign immunity and was properly dismissed. II. … This extraordinary remedy will be granted only when the right to it is clearly established. (Parsons v. Walker (1975), 28 Ill. App. 3d 517 , 328 N.E.2d 920 .)

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