Case law

Yavapai-Apache Nation v. Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel

201 Cal. App. 4th 190 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 29, 2011

For state court jurisdiction to exist in these matters, the tribe’s waiver of immunity must be clearly expressed as to its scope and applicability to disputes, and must be made by a person or entity authorized to do so. … (See In re Marriage of Eben-King & King (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 92, 117 [ 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 113 ] [rejecting grounds for relief advanced for the first time on appeal because “[i]t is well established that issues or theories not

Buckner v. Gordon

81 Ky. 665 · Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Apr 12, 1884

The title of the act is to “establish a police court in the town of Winchester,” and in the body of the act the “qualified voters,” who are to select the presiding officer of the court thereby ■created, are required to reside … coroners, and justices of the peace, by the “qualified voters” of the several districts and counties, clearly indicate that this qualification for electors was intended to apply in the ■election of constitutional officers

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.

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. CHRIS GREEN

Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee · Feb 23, 2026

The record clearly establishes what occurred in the trial court, and the State does not assert that the Defendant waived this issue for tactical purposes. Rimmer, 623 S.W.3d at 255-56; State v. … The record clearly establishes what occurred in the trial court, and the State does not argue that the Defendant waived this issue for tactical purposes. Rimmer, 623 S.W.3d at 255-56; Smith, 492 S.W.3d at 239.

Smith v. Edwards

46 Md. App. 452 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 5, 1980

Governmental immunity was not even discussed. Appellants also allege that their actions were without malice and thus individual council members were entitled to qualified immunity. … We are unable to follow the argument because qualified immunity applies to actions for tort and has no application to acts which are ultra vires.

May v. County of Monterey

139 Cal. App. 3d 717 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 7, 1983

Appellant argues that this showing was insufficient to establish that respondents had summoned medical care. … But clearly the respondents’ showing was addressed not to whether they had summoned medical care but to whether any arguable failure to have done so could have been deemed a proximate cause of the decedent’s death.

City of Miami v. De La Cruz

784 So. 2d 475 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Mar 14, 2001

Here, De La Cruz provided sufficient testimony and evidence to establish that she was injured as a result of the City's negligence. … A new trial, solely on damages is appropriate here since liability was clearly established without substantial dispute.

Montgomery v. City of Detroit

181 Mich. App. 298 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 21, 1989

Clearly, Walls’ determination of the seriousness of Robnett’s condition and his decision to call ems were discretionary functions. … The language used in. subsection (1) clearly provides that the amended MCL 691.1407; MSA 3.996(107) does not apply to causes of action arising prior to July 1, 1986.

Nihiser v. Hocking Cty. Bd. of Commrs.

2013 Ohio 3849 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 30, 2013

. {¶12} Once immunity is generally established, “the second tier of analysis is whether any of the five exceptions to immunity in subsection (B) apply.” Id. at ¶ 12. … Clearly, boards of county commissioners are given the authority to perform this function.

Collier-Hammond v. State

154 N.E.3d 364 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 30, 2020

In the state’s motion, the state argued that, [h]istorically, sovereign immunity has protected the State against claims of wrongful imprisonment. … credible evidence sustains the issue which is to be established before them.

Muhammad v. New Orleans Police Dept.

2000 La.App. 4 Cir. 1034 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jul 11, 2001

While these facts must be clearly established, they need not be established beyond a reasonable doubt. Cittadino, supra. … They claim that City policy clearly establishes that sick leave is a privilege granted exclusively for illness and that Civil Service rules and regulations restrict its uses.

Harris County, Texas v. Florencio Bacilio AKA Florencio Bacilio Ramirez and Yolanda Bacilio Florencio Bacilio AKA Florencio Bacilio Ramirez and Yolanda Bacilio

Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Aug 13, 2024

A plaintiff bears the burden of establishing a waiver of immunity. See Rattray v. City of Brownsville, 662 S.W.3d 860, 865-66 (Tex. 2023); Dall. Area Rapid Transit v. Whitley, 104 S.W.3d 540, 542 (Tex. 2003). … Harris County’s claims against the Bacilios, and the Bacilios claims for offsetting damages against the county, clearly implicate Reata’s holding.

People v. Beattie

96 A.D. 383 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 15, 1904

the board is required to issue to the applicant a certificate showing that he is qualified to practice as a master or journeyman horseshoer. … It thus clearly appears by this amendment that for a violation of section 384m of the Penal Code outside of cities of the first and second class no penalty whatever is provided, while within those cities such act is made

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.”

King v. City of Chicago

324 Ill. App. 3d 856 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 16, 2001

ANALYSIS On appeal, King contends the trial court erred in ruling that the CHAPD and Hixon were immune from liability under the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Tort Immunity Act) (745 ILCS … He has failed, therefore, to establish that he had a legitimate expectation of continued employment with the CPD. See Faustrum v.

Ridgewood Manor II, Inc. v. The Delaware Manufactured Home Relocation Authority

Court of Chancery of Delaware · Dec 31, 2014

No. 8528-VCN December 31, 2014 Page 24 so clear that continuing to collect the assessment in normal course qualified as conscious indifference. … Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have not established the elements for an unjust enrichment claim, for one because the assessments are held in trust for Plaintiffs’ benefit.83 To establish a claim for unjust enrichment,

Otero v. Warnick

241 Mich. App. 143 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 26, 2000

The motion should be granted only when the claim is so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could possibly justify a right of recovery. … As noted supra, n 12, we do not suggest that the statute grants absolute immunity in every case.

Ruth v. Jennings

136 Ohio App. 3d 370 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 13, 1999

On January 5, 1999, appellees filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that they had qualified immunity from suit pursuant to R.C. 2744.03(6). … may be asserted to establish nonliability: a * * * “(6) * * *, the employee is immune from liability unless one of the following applies: “(a) The employee’s acts or omissions were manifestly outside the scope of the employee

Waldon v. Housing Authority of Paducah

854 S.W.2d 777 · Court of Appeals of Kentucky · May 21, 1993

The Constitution guarantees to him his right to a day in court for the purpose of establishing the alleged wrong perpetuated on him and recovery of his resultant damages. (Emphasis added). … Clearly a jury question is presented on the issue of proximate cause of Smith’s death precluding summary judgment.

Owens v. City of Signal Hill

154 Cal. App. 3d 123 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 4, 1984

They regulate massage establishments and massage technicians. … date of this Chapter if they qualify under the provisions of this Chapter, and in any event any permits issued hereunder prior to the effective date of this ordinance shall be null and void upon the passage of ninety (90