Case law

Michael J. v. Los Angeles County Department of Adoptions

201 Cal. App. 3d 859 · California Court of Appeal · May 31, 1988

Summary judgment is properly granted only when the evidence in support of the moving party establishes that there is no issue of fact to be tried. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c; Lipson v. … “Unless the Legislature has clearly provided for immunity, the important societal goal of compensating injured parties for damages caused by willful or negligent acts must prevail.” (Ramos v.

McDonough v. City of Rosemount

503 N.W.2d 493 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Jul 13, 1993

However, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to McDonough’s position, there is no showing Jilk intentionally committed an act prohibited by clearly established law or regulation. See Rico, 472 N.W.2d at 107 . … Jilk is entitled to summary judgment on McDonough’s claims against him based upon official immunity. III. McMenomy argues he is entitled to immunity from McDonough’s suit.

Edwards v. Ritchie

173 So. 2d 497 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Mar 17, 1965

We conclude that the lower court was justified in determining that there was no conflict of evidence; and, that whether or not the defendant was a subcontractor and consequently immune from suit as a third party tort-feasor … And, as heretofore noted, if there was no liability as an employer under the Act, there was no immunity from suit as a third-party tort-feasor.

Shawn Patton v. Harris County Community Supervision and Corrections Department

Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · Nov 23, 2005

The Texas Whistleblower Act: (1) creates a cause of action, (2) sets procedural prerequisites for filing suit, and (3) clearly waives sovereign immunity once these requirements are met. Tex. S. Univ. v. … However, Patton pled the CSO = s conduct violated Chapter 76 of the Texas Government Code, which is clearly a law for Whistleblower purposes.

Ross v. Consumers Power Co.

93 Mich. App. 687 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 19, 1979

We are not unmindful of the fact that the Legislature has provided for the establishment and operation of. drainage districts, see MCL 280.51 et seq.; MSA 11.1051 et seq., nor *698 are we unaware of the fact that a drainage … It is in this area that the interests of the individual most clearly outweigh the need to protect government from liability, and accordingly, when its activities fall into this category, we should not hesitate to hold government

White Mountain Health Center, Inc. v. Maricopa County

241 Ariz. 230 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Dec 20, 2016

See AR.S. §§ 36-2804.04(A)(7) (“Registry identification cards for qualifying patients and designated caregivers shall contain ... … We review only whether awarding the separate sanction pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-349 was clearly erroneous. See Bennett v.

Oda v. State

111 Wash. App. 79 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 8, 2002

By contrast, the waiver of sovereign immunity in tort in RCW 4.92.090 is broad. … Thus, our Supreme Court has said that an individual plaintiff can support a disparate treatment case with statistics, but cannot establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment with statistics.

Firetree, Ltd. v. Fairchild

920 A.2d 913 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 9, 2007

Laurelton Center was established in 1918 for the rehabilitation, care and treatment of persons with mental retardation. … Id. *917 Preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer should be sustained only where the pleadings are clearly insufficient to establish a right to relief; any doubt must be resolved in favor of overruling the demurrer

Cannon v. Insured Lloyds

499 So. 2d 978 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Oct 8, 1986

The burden of proof in a motion for summary judgment is on the mover to establish that there are no genuine issues of material fact. This burden is a great one. … We thus conclude that the issue of Lavalais' employment status at the time of the accident is clearly a material fact.

Fabian v. Kettering

2024 Ohio 360 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 2, 2024

It establishes a three-step analysis for determining whether a political subdivision is immune from liability, starting with a broad rule that a political subdivision is generally not liable in damages.” … Because no exceptions to immunity applied, Kettering was immune from liability. {¶ 21} Regarding Tillotson, Fabian made no allegations that his acts or omissions were outside the scope of his employment or that

Jeffrey Hewitt v. Westfield Washington School Corp Board of School Trusties of Westfield Washington School Corp.

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 30, 2014

In the School’s amended answer, the School denied both claims, and asserted as affirmative defenses that Hewitt failed to mitigate his damages and that the Board Members were entitled to qualified immunity. … Further, because the School’s affirmative defense of qualified immunity requires factual determinations regarding whether or to what extent Hewitt was denied these procedural safeguards, we do not reach that issue at this

Freedman v. City of Oak Park

170 Mich. App. 349 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 12, 1988

Moreover, the roof of the park bench shelter was clearly not designed for being climbed upon, as Moshe Freedman was allegedly doing in this case. … Defendant, on the other hand, argues that plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts to establish an intentional nuisance claim.

Powell v. State of California

234 Cal. App. 3d 910 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 26, 1991

The Supreme Court disagreed, concluding that the language of the statute clearly created a mandatory duty. (Id. at p. 910.) … MacDonald therefore did not reach the immunity issues raised here.

Sherman v. County of Cortland

18 A.D.3d 908 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 5, 2005

When constructing or reconstructing a highway, the municipality is afforded qualified immunity for “judgmental error in planning highway design” (Gutelle v City of New York, supra at 795; see Weiss v Fote, 7 NY2d 579 [1960 … Indeed, finding an expert who disagrees with the municipality’s reasoned decision in such a project is not enough since a “choice between conflicting experts is insufficient to establish municipal liability” (Evans v Stranger

Moran v. Illinois Civil Service Commission

120 Ill. App. 3d 884 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 27, 1983

Plaintiff’s signature appeared at the bottom of the immunity agreement. … In this case, the evidence clearly establishes that plaintiff testified falsely before the Federal grand jury.

United Brokers Mortgage Co. v. Fidelity Philadelphia Trust Co.

26 Pa. Commw. 260 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 9, 1976

Preliminary objections of the Funds also assert sovereign immunity as to Count II of the complaint. … The statute establishing the Public School Employees’ Retirement Board is analogous in relevant parts, Public School Employees’ Retirement Code, 24 *265 Pa.

Jordan Darrell Morris v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Court of Appeals of Virginia · Sep 6, 2022

Second, does drug-induced suicidal ideation qualify as an “overdose” under the statute? We conclude that it does. … Suicidal ideation qualifies as an “overdose” when it is “a life-threatening condition.”

Duck Tours Seafari, Inc. v. City of Key West

875 So. 2d 650 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Mar 17, 2004

The City argues that it is entitled to state action immunity. State action immunity is a doctrine which originated under federal antitrust law. See City of Columbia v. … Because the traffic code does not contain any clearly expressed state policy to suppress competition, it follows that the City was not entitled to summary judgment on the issue of state action immunity. C.

State v. Collymore

168 Conn. App. 847 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Oct 11, 2016

It is well established that the state may immunize from prosecution a witness called in its case-in-chief. See generally General Statutes § 54-47a. … ‘‘Under the effective defense theory . . . the trial court has the authority to grant immunity to a defense witness when it is found that a potential defense witness can offer testimony which is clearly exculpatory and essential

University of Texas System v. Letitia Thomas

464 S.W.3d 754 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Mar 26, 2015

The Austin Court of Appeals extended the rationale of the Texas Supreme Court in Manbeck, which involved a school district’s governmental immunity, to state agencies such as UT and held that sovereign immunity bars a workers … We noted that the language of section 410.258(f) “clearly provided a consequence for the failure to comply”: any judgment rendered before the party that initiated the judicial review proceeding provided the statutorily-required