Case law

Morgan v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Auth.

2025 Ohio 1655 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 8, 2025

And if a plaintiff establishes that a bus driver was negligent in operating the bus doors, then the exception to immunity set forth in R.C. 2744.02(B)(1) applies. … Thus, an abuse of discretion also occurs when a court “‘applies the wrong legal standard, misapplies the correct legal standard, or relies on clearly erroneous findings of fact.’” Thomas v.

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).

In Re the Appeal of Graceland College Center

40 Kan. App. 2d 665 · Court of Appeals of Kansas · Oct 31, 2008

Tax exemption statutes, however, are to be construed strictly in favor of imposing the tax and against allowing the exemption for one who does not clearly qualify. [Citation omitted.]” … The plain and unambiguous language of statute clearly indicates that for an entity to qualify as an educational institution, it must meet only three requirements.

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.

Leasure v. Adena Local School Dist.

2012 Ohio 3071 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 28, 2012

Chapter 2744 establishes a three-step analysis for determining whether a political subdivision is immune from liability. Cramer v. Auglaize Acres, 113 Ohio St.3d 266, 270, 2007-Ohio-1946, 865 N.E.2d 9, ¶14. … We held that the school’s “initial decision * * * to purchase and install the irrigation system clearly involved the exercise of protected judgment or discretion, for which [the ROSS, 11CA3249

Franklin Township Auditors' Report

202 Pa. Super. 415 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 12, 1963

When the decree of incorporation was recorded, the borough was established. At that time it had no borough officers. … In well considered legislation which involves such changes a schedule of temporary expedients is usually and properly added, and the expedients provided would need to -be very clearly unconstitutional to justify a court in

Mission Consolidated School District v. Gloria Garcia

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Jan 28, 2010

waives immunity, and we agree. . . . … Notwithstanding the lack of briefing or argument, the supreme court considered the waiver issue (5) and concluded that the "TCHRA clearly and unambiguously waives immunity." Garcia , 253 S.W.3d at 660 .

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

Salte v. YMCA of Metropolitan Chicago Foundation

Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 2, 2004

Although some of the equipment normally found in an intubation kit was on the premises, the nurse did not bring it because she was not qualified to use it. … Additionally, although the complaint alleges that the paramedic was "duly qualified," the complaint fails to indicate whether the paramedic was certified and licensed and whether the paramedic was trained or qualified to

Union Elevator & Warehouse Co. v. State

152 Wash. App. 199 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 10, 2009

WSDOT countered that *203 the doctrine of sovereign immunity barred interest on the award of relocation benefits. … WSDOT denied reimbursement for the substitute equipment because it determined that the equipment at issue was real property and therefore did not qualify for relocation assistance.

Jones v. Francis Romero, Inc.

345 So. 2d 1286 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · May 13, 1977

trial court erred in its instructions to the jury on the definition of a statutory employee; (2) the jury's finding that plaintiff was the statutory employee of Francis Romero, Incorporated was manifestly erroneous and was clearly … Heebe's Bakery, Inc . case was dictum is without merit since the clearly established and following jurisprudential rule in Louisiana is that tort immunity is granted to a party found to be a "statutory employer".

Matheson v. Georgia Department of Transportation

280 Ga. App. 192 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Jun 16, 2006

The immunity claimed by the GDOT here is not “sovereign” immunity; it is an immunity granted by statute to an owner who invites the public onto land for recreational purposes without charging a fee. … As this court held in Thompson , clearly “the ability to picnic, quench one’s thirst, use the restroom, and stroll, with or without one’s pet, encompasses forms of relaxation which refresh the mind or body. [Cit.]”

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

Lazarus Iroh, Andrew Okafor v. Emmanuel Igwe

461 S.W.3d 253 · Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas) · Mar 23, 2015

Qualified Immunity Appellants argue they are protected from liability for Igwe’s defamation claim by qualified immunity or privilege. … Our record does not indicate appellants requested a jury question on their qualified immunity defense, and we have no findings on the matter.

Logan v. Lillie

728 A.2d 995 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 13, 1999

The rationale for this exception is to avoid unnecessary delay if the complaint is clearly barred by the doctrine of immunity. … In the case at bar, Father can not establish that there is a real and immediate threat that he will be wronged in the future.

Wunschel v. City of Jersey

208 N.J. Super. 234 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 25, 1986

But recognition of that circumstance does not end our inquiry for the New Jersey Tort Claims Act does not purport to establish the liabilities and immunities of a public employee in all of his endeavors. … But that was in the context of determin *240 ing the applicability of the fellow servant immunity of N.J.S.A. 34:15-8 which specifies that the immunity arises in cases of compensable injuries when the plaintiff and defendant

Kristopher Thomas Kastner v. the Hon. Tom Lawrence, Individually and as Harris County. Justice of the Peace

Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Nov 21, 2012

The plaintiff must allege facts that affirmatively establish the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Id.; City of Pasadena v. Kuhn, 260 S.W.3d 93, 95 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, no pet.). … The standard for absolute judicial immunity entails a two-part inquiry. First, the challenged acts must have been “judicial” ones. Second, the acts must not have been “‘clearly outside’ the judge’s jurisdiction.”

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.

Masten v. State

626 A.2d 838 · Superior Court of Delaware · Dec 9, 1991

charter of the school, and the trust established under the will of John Ferris. … The lengthy recital of legislative enactments clearly shows an unbroken embodiment of powers and obligations. DISCUSSION In general, the State of Delaware may not be sued without its consent. Donovan v.