Case law

City of Natchez v. De la Barre

145 So. 3d 729 · Court of Appeals of Mississippi · Mar 25, 2014

De la Barre testified that he knew of the danger in the area and that he never tried to step up onto the concrete tier of the sidewalk, which was “clearly damaged.” … The Mississippi Supreme Court has established that “a duty is discretionary when it is not imposed by law and depends upon the judgment or choice of the government entity or its employee.” Miss. Transp. Comm’n v.

City of Alton, Carter & Burgess, Inc., Turner, Collie & Braden, Inc., and Cris Equipment Company, Inc. v. Sharyland Water Supply Corporation

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Nov 25, 2008

To qualify as a third party beneficiary a third party must show that it is either a creditor beneficiary or a donee beneficiary. … The intent to confer a direct benefit upon a third party must be clearly and fully spelled out or enforcement by the third party must be denied. Id.; Stine v.

Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hughes

317 A.2d 114 · Court of Chancery of Delaware · Feb 19, 1974

Woodruff, Sup., 49 N.Y.S.2d 625 . *123 On the other hand, private grievances, such as charges of breach of fiduciary duty, are clearly beyond the jurisdiction of a federal administrative agency and do not, in my opinion, … United States, supra, does not require that immunity be extended to the present suit.

Harris v. Hilderbrand

191 N.E.3d 1143 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 9, 2022

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 by that division or sections … Without determining if that was proper, it was clearly not timely.

McSwain v. System Energy Resources, Inc.

97 So. 3d 102 · Court of Appeals of Mississippi · Aug 14, 2012

McSwain was a journeyman carpenter, a specific union craft S & W used to ensure its employees were qualified. Carpentry is not part of EOI’s regular business, and EOI did not employ any carpenters for normal operations. … To establish negligence under Mississippi law, McSwain must prove EOI owed a duty to him, and it breached that duty. Tucker, 743 So.2d at 315 (¶ 23).

Gruner v. Barber

207 Cal. App. 2d 54 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 20, 1962

Claimed Immunity Lastly, immunity is claimed by defendant because he performed his contract according to the plans and specifications furnished by the public agency employing him. … The general rule indicated by the cases relied upon clearly shows that: “One who contracts with a public body for the performance of public work is entitled to share the immunity of the public from liability for incidental

Harris County v. Gibbons

150 S.W.3d 877 · Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · Nov 18, 2004

Clearly, the statute does not address whether Barber’s actions brought him within the scope of employment. … If a public official is entitled to official immunity, the employer is also granted immunity. DeWitt v. Harris County, 904 S.W.2d 650, 653 (Tex.1995).

Larry Medlin Scroggs v. State

396 S.W.3d 1 · Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo) · May 19, 2010

Assuming, without deciding, that the immunity provided by § 261.106 would extend to the felonious actions shown by the evidence here, 9 the evidence did not conclusively establish appellants’ entitlement to immunity. … Failure to Instruct on Immunity Defense Appellants next argue that if immunity was not established as a matter of law the trial court erred by refusing a requested jury instruction on immunity.

Davis v. Cherokee Nation Enterprises

76 O.B.A.J. 40 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · May 25, 2004

Employer argued it was immune from litigation, absent an express waiver of sovereign immunity by the tribe or Congressional action permitting the suit. … Sanders, No. 99,485 at 8.09 ‘ {13 Based on the rationale set forth in Sanders, and after examination of the record presented, including the policy of insurance, this Court finds the workers' compensation court clearly erred

Frapaul Constr. Co. v. Transportation Dep't of NJ

175 N.J. Super. 84 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 17, 1980

Prior to 1970 the State was protected from actions in contract and tort by sovereign immunity. In 1970, however, the Supreme Court abolished the common law sovereign immunity of the State in contract actions. … NOTES [1] Report of the Attorney General's Task Force on Sovereign Immunity, (May 1972). The report addressed waiver of sovereign immunity in both tort and contract.

Strong v. State

201 Cal. App. 4th 1439 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 30, 2011

(b).) 7 These statutes “establish two principles; (1) unless they are granted specific statutory immunity, a public entity and its employees are hable in tort for the same causes of action that could be brought against a … “Together these statutes establish two principles: (1) unless they are granted specific statutory immunity, a public entity and its employees are liable in tort for the same causes of action that could be brought against

Jackson v. Dackman Co.

181 Md. App. 546 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 10, 2008

Appellees did not fully comply with the Statute and, thus, are not entitled to qualified immunity. … Appellants are clearly mistaken, as this Court has previously held “that violations of the Consumer Protection Act are in the nature of a tort action.” MarryCLE, *584 LLC v.

Texas Department of Transportation v. Garrison

121 S.W.3d 808 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Oct 30, 2003

But, the Act also establishes various exceptions to this general waiver of immunity. … Appellees contend the Letter clearly indicates TXDOT had determined to utilize a stop and go signal, but failed to implement its policy. They further contend Zambory *811 supports their waiver of immunity argument.

Frank v. Toledo Hospital

84 Ohio App. 3d 610 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 30, 1992

In accordance therewith, appellees offered appellant an immunization; however, she refused it because of an anticipated pregnancy and the potential danger of damage to the fetus from the immunization. … In the second week of September, appellant confirmed that she was pregnant and could not receive the immunization.

Willett v. Ford

603 S.W.2d 143 · Court of Appeals of Tennessee · Dec 5, 1979

Brookins, Jr., a minor 17 years of age, allegedly illegally purchased a quantity of alcoholic beverages from Ford’s Package Store, an establishment owned by the defendant/appellant Charles Ford. … Clearly, by his action in this case, Weems was, in the words of the Imbler Court, “initiating a prosecution.”

Larison v. PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY DIST. NO. 1

998 S.W.2d 192 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Aug 17, 1999

A public entity is generally immune from tort liability under sovereign immunity. See, e.g., Page v. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer Dist., 377 S.W.2d 348, 352-53 (Mo.1964). … Clearly, there is no evidence that the operator or other Water District employees were actually aware the Larisons’ meter lid was not properly secured.

Lionel Hernandez v. San Benito Consolidated Independent School District

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Sep 24, 2020

A plaintiff has the burden to affirmatively demonstrate the trial court’s jurisdiction, which encompasses the burden of establishing a waiver of a governmental entity’s immunity from suit. Town of Shady Shores v. … If the Legislature had intended to also waive a school district’s immunity from a claim arising out of the operation or use of motor-driven equipment, then it would have clearly and unambiguously said so. See TEX.

Chilutti, S. v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

300 A.3d 430 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 19, 2023

There must be evidence sufficient to establish the parties’ consent to arbitration. … Because sovereign immunity protects government entities from a lawsuit itself, the Court concluded that a sovereign immunity defense is irreparably lost if appellate review of an adverse decision on sovereign immunity

Ryals v. City of Philadelphia

848 A.2d 1101 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 7, 2004

In this case, the z-bricks and concrete headers clearly established the path for pedestrian egress across the highway, just as the painted crosswalk did in Glenn , thereby serving the express dual purposes, of “guiding pedestrians … The crosswalk in question falls within this language and clearly acts to regulate traffic.

Jennifer Jo Dare Medlin v. Andrew Allen Miller

Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 16, 2026

But it is “ ‘well established that the privilege protects against real dangers, not remote and speculative possibilities.’ ” Seventh Elect Church in Israel v. Rogers, 34 Wn. … For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully concur in the result reached by the majority but write separately to express my view that we should clearly disavow the portion of Flannery holding 11 It is arguably unlikely