Case law

Law v. Newark Bd. of Ed.

175 N.J. Super. 26 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 25, 1980

At the conclusion of trial the board renewed its motion, arguing that plaintiffs had failed to establish a standard of conduct by which the action of the board's employees were to be evaluated and that the board is immune … The record in this case clearly establishes that defendant board is not immune from liability by virtue of N.J.S.A. 59:3-11.

James v. Lister

331 S.C. 277 · Court of Appeals of South Carolina · May 11, 1998

This case demonstrates clearly how the charitable status defense affects the trial of the case to the jury. … Immunity from punitive damages cannot be characterized as a complete bar to a plaintiffs claim.

Socomet, Inc. v. City of Detroit Socomet, Inc.

33 Mich. App. 626 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 20, 1971

Therefore, it was claimed exempt or immune under Article I, § 10, cl 2, of the Constitution of the United States. … Maryland, supra, it has become well-established that imports lose their constitutional immunity when the importer (1) sells them or (2) ‘breaks up the packages’ or (3) puts them to the use for which they were imported.

Joseph Wendell Hume v. State

Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo) · Nov 24, 2009

 If one invokes a statute as basis for defeating immunity, that statute must clearly and unambiguously abrogate the shield.  Tex. Gov’t Code  Ann . §311.034 (Vernon Supp. 2010). … Univ. , supra (wherein the court clearly held that executing a contract waives immunity from liability).

Williams v. State of California

62 Cal. App. 3d 960 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 21, 1976

The court in Ramos rationalized that even if the county or its agents had discretion to establish additional requirements of eligibility, the Labor Code forbids the employment of the minors under conditions not *968 complied … Elton, Ramos, Bradford and Elson discloses that in each of these cases the reviewing court concluded that the failure to discharge the mandatory duty imposed by the enactment relied upon was the failure to perform a duty clearly

Cuellar v. City of San Antonio

821 S.W.2d 250 · Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · Oct 9, 1991

We will, therefore, not address the issue of immunity which everyone agrees is now irrelevant. … prior judgment and pleading of *257 the prior suit, and failed to establish that the judgment was final.

Quinlan v. Jones

922 So. 2d 917 · Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · Aug 26, 2005

“One of the purposes of immunity, absolute or qualified, is to spare a defendant not only unwarranted liability, but unwarranted demands customarily imposed upon those defending a long drawn out lawsuit.” Siegert v. … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985), the United States Supreme Court stated that qualified immunity “is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability; and like an absolute immunity

Riggins v. City of St. Marys

264 Ga. App. 95 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Nov 13, 2003

The city properly points out that “[t]o establish proximate cause, a plaintiff must show a legally attributable causal connection between the defendant’s conduct and the alleged injury. … But we must reach this question to determine whether the city is immune from suit with respect to Riggins’s negligence claim.

Railroad Commission of Texas v. Gulf Energy Exploration Corporation

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Aug 5, 2010

Specifically, the Commission claims a “waiver of immunity only with respect to Gulf’s breach of contract claim, and does not clearly and unambiguously waive immunity with respect to Gulf’s tort claims.” … Clearly then, there is no question about the fact that the Legislature intended to waive immunity and limit its damages.

Ex Parte Salvation Army, 2100033 (ala.civ.app. 2-18-2011)

72 So. 3d 1224 · Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · Feb 18, 2011

Williams clearly suffered no prejudice by the filing of the reply. … Clearly, First Choice was Williams’s general employer.

Carroll Independent School District v. J & a Construction Services Group, L.L.C.

Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth) · Mar 16, 2006

jurisdiction is a question of law. [4] Thus, appellate courts apply a de novo standard of review to a trial court = s ruling on a plea to the jurisdiction. [5] The party suing the governmental entity bears the burden of establishing … by asserting a claim, withdrawing that claim does not defeat the trial court = s jurisdiction. [15] Thus, because CISD = s original petition requested damages, it clearly brought suit A for damages. @ [16] In addition, J

Harris County District Attorney's Office, Texas v. Ameal Woods and Jordan Davis, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarily Situated

Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Nov 25, 2025

“Consequently, sovereign immunity will bar an otherwise proper [U]DJA claim that has the effect of establishing a right to relief against the State for which the Legislature has not waived sovereign immunity.” … The issue of immunity under section 1983 requires consideration of (1) “whether the [state official’s] conduct has violated a federal right” and (2) “whether the right in question was ‘clearly established’ at the time of

Iovino v. State

228 Mich. App. 125 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 17, 1998

Plaintiff has presented evidence to establish that the traffic signals at the intersection of Dixie Highway and Watkins Lake Road may not have been properly positioned or programmed to ameliorate the hazard of an oncoming … Clearly, then, the mdot actually exercised control over the area in question and must be perceived to have jurisdiction over this spot pursuant to the conception of jurisdiction as used in the statute.

De Dios v. Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs

23 Mass. L. Rptr. 565 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Feb 26, 2008

sovereign immunity. … Upon parsing the statute, two requirements emerge in order for an owner to qualify for immunity: (1) the owner must permit the public to use the land for recreational purposes, and (2) the owner must not impose a charge or

Maselli v. Regional School District No. 10

Connecticut Appellate Court · Jul 7, 2020

The Appellate Court thus found that the plaintiff did not qualify as a member of an identifiable class of schoolchildren. Id., 667–68. … Because the failure to establish any one of the prongs for the exception is fatal to a plaintiff’s claim that they fall within it, the negligence claims against Samudosky are barred by governmen- tal immunity.

Hutcherson v. City of Phoenix

188 Ariz. 183 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Oct 8, 1996

The legislature has not granted qualified immunity for 911 service. … Thus, under the current statute, the City has qualified immunity if plaintiff is harmed after police arrive and they fail to make an arrest or an investigatory stop of the suspect; but the City does not have qualified immunity

Bethea v. Smith

176 Ga. App. 467 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Oct 4, 1985

However, we do not construe the Sandford decision as establishing that such “barriers” are non-existent. … The evidence in McCormick clearly showed that, as to that single procedure, there was an overlap of medical and nursing expertise.

Tanna Gordon v. State of Tennessee

Court of Appeals of Tennessee · Oct 10, 2024

Cir. 1993) (holding that the legislature “is not required to define each and every word in a piece of legislation in order to express clearly its will. … Dec. 19, 2005) (holding the evidence insufficient to establish gross negligence); Morgan v. State, No. M2002- 02496-COA-R3-CV, 2004 WL 170352, at *6 (Tenn. Ct. App.

Barry v. Retirement Board of the Firemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund

357 Ill. App. 3d 749 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 29, 2005

We conclude that Bertucci establishes that a fireman’s widow may qualify for duty death benefits under section 6 — 140 of the Code if she demonstrates that her husband suffered a duty-related injury which either (1) caused … and that’s the purpose of the Tort Immunity Act and it seems to me that since the appellate court has taken that position, in these cases I am duty bound to follow that.

GEORGIA DIVISON, SONS OF CONFEDERATE VETERANS, INC. v. BRYAN A. DOWNS, IN HIS OFFICAL CAPACITY AS CITY ATTORNEY OF THE CITY OF DECATUR

Court of Appeals of Georgia · Feb 23, 2024

In Sons of Confederate Veterans II, the Supreme Court addressed what it identified as “a discrete and important threshold question: whether the Georgia Constitution requires a plaintiff to establish some cognizable injury … immunity are not favored.”