Case law

Essex Properties Urban Renewal Associates, Inc. v. City of Newark

20 N.J. Tax 360 · New Jersey Tax Court · Sep 4, 2002

Salt and Light also established a policy of retaining residents who were unable to pay. … OCHC, 351 N.J.Super. 280 , 798 A.2d 131 (App.Div.2002), where in a charitable immunity case, the court held that OCHC was not deemed charitable for immunity purposes because the record demonstrated no attempt to obtain charitable

Pompton Lakes Senior Citizens Housing Corp. v. Borough of Pompton Lakes

16 N.J. Tax 331 · New Jersey Tax Court · Feb 25, 1997

The defendant claimed protection under the Charitable Immunity Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-7 to -11. … Because the Housing Complex does not qualify for charitable exemption under N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.6, the superintendent’s residence cannot, on a derivative basis, so qualify.

West-Kimmons v. Univ. of Toledo Med. Ctr.

2013 Ohio 5931 · Ohio Court of Claims · Jul 18, 2013

Although plaintiff states in her brief that she is alleging disparate impact discrimination, the allegations clearly support a disparate treatment claim. {¶ 13} To establish a Title VII employment discrimination claim … Under McDonnell Douglas, a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of race discrimination by establishing that plaintiff: 1) was a member of a protected class; 2) suffered an adverse employment action; 3) was qualified

Waters v. Ohio State Univ.

2016 Ohio 5260 · Ohio Court of Claims · Jul 19, 2016

Qualified Privilege {¶28} After a plaintiff’s prima facie case for defamation is established, a defendant may invoke a defense of a qualified privilege, if available. Hahn v. … a qualified privilege.

Jim v. Washington Territory

1 Wash. Terr. 63 · Washington Territory · Dec 15, 1859

Their qualifications, when so selected, must correspond with those required by law, and by-standers returned as qualified, will be presumed to be so qualified, until the contrary is shown. … for acts of indiscriminate and barbarous murder, on the plea of legal hostility, we are clearly of the opinion that the plea of an Indian war cannot avail to secure immunity for acts of treachery and murder committed by

Alsup v. Univ. of Cincinnati

2012 Ohio 6325 · Ohio Court of Claims · Jul 31, 2012

Once a qualified privilege is shown, falsity and actual malice must be demonstrated with convincing clarity in order to recover. Burkes, at 373. … Thus, the court concluded that the doctor’s conduct was not manifestly outside the scope of his employment and that he was entitled to immunity. {¶ 20} The evidence establishes that Dean Lindell did not use the term

Harvey v. Univ. of Cincinnati

2009 Ohio 7029 · Ohio Court of Claims · Nov 24, 2009

Naber’s position as an assistant professor at UC clearly qualifies as state employment.1 Thus, the issue before the court is whether Dr. … Naber was acting on behalf of the state at the time when the alleged negligence occurred and because the evidence establishes that Dr.

Dammons v. N.C. D.O.C.

North Carolina Industrial Commission · Jun 24, 2005

The pleading alleges facts establishing negligence under the existing common-law doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. 4. … While the Tort Claims Act waives sovereign immunity for the State, the Act does not waive official immunity for public officers.

Pomco Graphics, Inc. v. Director

13 N.J. Tax 578 · New Jersey Tax Court · Sep 1, 1993

upon whether that activity establishes a nontrivial additional connection with the taxing State.” … Although New Jersey may qualify and regulate a person seeking to solicit business from New Jersey casinos, it may not utilize such laws to disqualify that person from the federal immunity granted by § 381.

Robilotto v. State

104 Misc. 2d 713 · New York Court of Claims · Jun 6, 1980

We thus find immunity even less called for under the instant circumstances. Clearly defendant did not meet its burden with respect to its immunity defense. (See, e.g., Mink Hollow Dev. … This would appear to be a species of qualified immunity. (See Drake v City of Rochester, supra; Cooper v Morin, 91 Misc 2d 302, 318-320 .) .

American Portable Irrigation Co. v. Commission

3 Or. Tax 360 · Oregon Tax Court · Jan 29, 1969

The commission has adopted Reg 317.070(2) which states in part: "* * * In order to qualify for the offset, the corporation must show that it was the legal owner of the personal property and that the taxes were assessed to … ORS 57.480(4) and (5) clearly give the surviving corporation all the rights, privileges, immunities and franchises of the merged corporation and also make the surviving corporation responsible for all the liabilities and

Al-Jahmi v. Ohio Athletic Comm.

2020 Ohio 3487 · Ohio Court of Claims · May 13, 2020

Plaintiff must establish recklessness. The court now turns to the motions for summary judgment. … The Court reasoned that, in its previous decisions, it had established that discretionary immunity applies to the decision “whether” to improve a highway as well as the decision as to “what type of improvement to make.”

Harland v. Territory

3 Wash. Terr. 131 · Washington Territory · Feb 3, 1887

Section 3078 of the Code provides that “all qualified electors shall be competent to serve as petit jurors, and all qualified electors and householders shall be competent to serve as grand jurors.” … It certainly cannot be affirmed as an historical fact that this has ever been established as one of the fundamental privileges and immunities of the sex.

Estate of Morgan v. Ohio Dept. of Transp.

2010 Ohio 1531 · Ohio Court of Claims · Mar 22, 2010

Additionally, the records establish a traffic count of up to 1,900 vehicles per day on this stretch of SR 41. … The doctrine of discretionary immunity “has been applied to immunize the state from liability for discretionary decisions such as whether or not to install a traffic signal at an intersection, [and] what type of traffic signal

Question Submitted by: The Honorable Steve Bashore, Oklahoma House of Representatives, District 7

2026 OK AG 1 · Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Feb 13, 2026

Federal Constitutional Claims and Qualified Immunity. ¶12 While the GTCA may bar state law negligence claims, it does not preclude federal constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . … A right is clearly established when a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision is directly on point, "or the clearly established weight of authority from other courts have found the law to be as the plaintiff maintains."

Dembrod v. State

185 Misc. 1061 · New York Court of Claims · Nov 19, 1945

Section 8 now provides: “ Waiver of immunity from liability. … from liability must be clearly expressed.”

Hewitt Contracting Co. v. Department of Transportation

20 Fla. Supp. 2d 265 · State of Florida Division of Administrative Hearings · Jan 28, 1986

This section does not establish a time period during which the certificate shall be revoked, and subsection (2)(d) above-quoted establishes the terms for reinstatement. … 272 This clearly indicates such immunity should carry over to these proceedings.

In re the Estate of Smith

118 Misc. 2d 165 · New York Surrogate's Court · Mar 7, 1983

Clearly, there still exists a significant class of nonmarital children who could possibly establish the identity of their fathers, but not to an extent that would satisfy the legislatively established criteria that would … Unquestionably, the amendment at issue created a new group of persons who now can qualify as distributees.

Johnson v. Catawba State Park

2010 Ohio 1951 · Ohio Court of Claims · Jan 8, 2010

. {¶ 4} Since this incident occurred at Catawba State Park, defendant qualifies as the owner of the “premises” under R.C. 1533.18, et seq. {¶ 5} “Premises” and “recreational user” are defined in R.C. 1533.18 … Plaintiff is clearly a recreational user, having paid no fee to enter the premises. Owing no duty to plaintiff, defendant clearly has no liability under a negligence theory. See Shockey v.

R.L.K. & Co. v. State Tax Commission

1 Or. Tax 584 · Oregon Tax Court · Jun 30, 1964

FEDERAL INSTRUMENTALITY Neither the statutes nor the cases clearly define a federal instrumentality immune from state and local taxation. … All are clearly covered expressly or by implication. That ease establishes that these restrictions are not sufficient to destroy the possessory character of plaintiff’s interest under the special use permit.