Case law

Pedro Mendez v. City of Amarillo

Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo) · Jun 30, 2008

When determining whether there is a clear and unambiguous waiver of immunity from suit, we generally resolve any ambiguity in favor of retaining immunity. See Wichita Falls State Hosp. v. … So, although Mendez contends that the City's charter provision clearly waives immunity, in fact, the quoted language of “implead or be impleaded” has been determined not to constitute a clear and unambiguous waiver of immunity

Pedro Mendez v. City of Amarillo

Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo) · Jun 30, 2008

When determining whether there is a clear and unambiguous waiver of immunity from suit, we generally resolve any ambiguity in favor of retaining immunity. See Wichita Falls State Hosp. v. … So, although Mendez contends that the City's charter provision clearly waives immunity, in fact, the quoted language of “implead or be impleaded” has been determined not to constitute a clear and unambiguous waiver of immunity

Schweikart v. Sandy Hook Reservation Authority

92 N.J. Super. 508 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 14, 1966

The act created and established in the State Department of Conservation and Economic Development a body corporate and politic, to be known as the Sandy Hook Reservation Authority, which was to acquire, construct, develop, … Clearly, the Department’s operation of the park is the alternative to operation by the Authority contemplated when the Legislature included N. J. 8. A. 13 :15 — 16 in the Sandy Hook Reservation Authority Act.

Dann v. Auburn Police Department

138 A.D.3d 1468 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 29, 2016

Although prosecutors are afforded only qualified immunity when acting in an investigative capacity (see Buckley, 509 US at 275-276 ; Kirchner, 107 AD3d at 1623; Claude H. v County of Oneida, 214 AD2d 964, 965 [1995]), we … It is well established that “ ‘information provided by an identified citizen accusing another of a crime is legally sufficient to provide the police with probable cause to arrest’ ” (Lyman, 74 AD3d at 1843 ; see Zetes, 108

Prejean v. Maintenance Enterprises, Inc.

2008 La.App. 4 Cir. 0364 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Mar 25, 2009

The contractual language is clearly and unambiguously regulating the rights and responsibilities of the statutory and direct employers as between themselves, which is permissible. … Unlike the instant case, the contract in Smith did not establish a payment regime to the injured worker which is contrary to law.

State ex rel. Slacas v. KCI Technologies, Inc.

2022 Ohio 4573 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 19, 2022

This intent was clearly stated and shown in the MFS report but did not occur in the design and construction of the new Subdivision storm drainage system. … . {¶27} Thus, it is established that the Portage County defendants are entitled to immunity except to the extent that they may be liable for failing to maintain, i.e., keep free of obstruction and deterioration,

Goodloe v. Laroche Industries, Inc.

686 So. 2d 335 · Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · Dec 6, 1996

Clearly, the son was at least a partial dependent at the time of Goodloe’s death and is therefore qualified to receive compensation under § 25-5-64. … While it is true that the time for appealing the order had run, it is not true that the order was immune from attack.

Avnet, Inc. v. Department of Revenue

187 Wash. App. 427 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 28, 2015

The Court soundly rejected this immunity in Complete Auto Transit, expressly overruling precedents to the contrary. 430 U.S. at *446 288-89 . … Avnet further asserts that delivery by common carrier into the taxing state does not qualify as in-state activity for purposes of substantial nexus.

Mitchell v. City of Newnan

125 Ga. App. 761 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Mar 3, 1972

This out-moded distinction was nevertheless so well established in Georgia that as recently as 1952 this court ruled in Boone v. City of Columbus, 87 Ga. … App. 701 ( 75 SE2d 338 ) that a municipal corporation was without authority to waive its governmental immunity.

Welch v. State

148 S.W.2d 876 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Feb 22, 1941

Although the Legislature is authorized to waive the State’s immunity from such liability, its intention to do so should appear by clear and unambiguous language. … We think the Constitution clearly indicates the meaning that should be given the phrase “municipal corporation” when employed in legislation.

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 … would have the effect of establishing a right to relief against the governmental entity for which governmental immunity has not been waived.

Raul Trevino Lara Jr. v. State

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Dec 3, 2015

Furthermore, merely being granted transactional immunity does not automatically establish that party as an accomplice witness. See Moulton v. State, 508 S.W.2d 833, 836 (Tex. Crim. … Their presence in the car is not enough to qualify as accomplices. See Paredes, 129 S.W.3d at 536.

Dixon v. Holden

923 S.W.2d 370 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Mar 12, 1996

Kirby, Note, Qualified Immunity For Civil Rights Violations: Refining The Standard, 75 CORNELL L.Rev. 462, 486 (1990). The narrow question is most readily answered. … SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY The respondents argue that the present suit violates sovereign immunity.

Commonwealth v. Johnson

419 Pa. Super. 625 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 22, 1992

This establishment was owned by the defendant, Joseph D’Amato, who suspected Mr. … Immunity Agreement, June 16, 1986, Record at 11. This agreement contemplated immunity as to any testimony or information gathered after the grant of immunity.

State v. City of Galveston

175 S.W.3d 1 · Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Sep 10, 2004

And, the Legislature knows how to clearly and unambiguously waive sovereign immunity from suit. … PRAC. & REM.CODE ANN. § 101.021 (establishing waiver of immunity from liability by providing, "A governmental unit ... is liable for: [enumerated acts].").

James v. Ohio Edison Co.

2025 Ohio 1046 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 26, 2025

, he will have ample time to prepare for trial on the immunity issue. … As noted above, both the Supreme Court of Ohio and this Court have previously established that a trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to amend when an untimely motion offers no reason to justify

Zagaros v. Erickson

558 N.W.2d 516 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Feb 4, 1997

Erickson testified that Zagaros suffered from BPD and that those who suffer from BPD have difficulty establishing relationships. … Cutler testified that Zagaros suffered from some personality difficulties, stating: “Clearly in my mind there is trouble there.” He was unsure, however, that the diagnosis was as severe as BPD.

City of Elsa, Texas v. M. A. L., F.B., and A.G.

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · May 11, 2006

Although the Act itself does not contain a waiver of governmental immunity, appellees argue that appellant, nonetheless, has waived its immunity from suit because section 3 of its charter clearly and unambiguously states … Appellant, being a city, qualifies as such a governmental unit. See id. ' 101.001(3)(B) (Vernon 2005) . Therefore, appellant is authorized by statute to bring this interlocutory appeal.

Kaufmann v. Jersey Community Hospital

396 Ill. App. 3d 729 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 8, 2009

Act (Tort Immunity Act) (745 ILCS 10/8— 101(a) (West 2006)). … Schroeder’s alleged act of licking plaintiffs breast was clearly unrelated to her patient care.

Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. Union Switch & Signal, Inc.

161 Pa. Commw. 400 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 14, 1994

It stated: Clearly, PAT may claim sovereign immunity if it is a “commonwealth party.” A “commonwealth party” is defined in 42 Pa.C.S. § 8501 as “[a] Commonwealth agency and an employee thereof ...” … The Board of Claims was established by the General Assembly to hear contract claims brought against the state.