Sentences with phrase «immunity provisions under»

O.C.G.A. § 16-11-135 is just one of many immunity provisions under Georgia law, and those with a possible negligence claim should always consider finding counsel experienced in the legal nuances of all the possible claims they may have.

Although the Chief Justice acknowledged that this argument had some merit, the more determinative factor — and the key difference between the statutory immunity provisions relied upon by the ERCB and Alberta Environment — was that the immunity clause with respect to the former explicitly contemplated the regulator as an entity («the Board or a member of the Board...») whereas the immunity provisions under the Water Act and the EPEA did not (referring only to «persons» in various capacities; see paras 62 — 71).

Not exact matches

This would certainly seem to be effective to confer an immunity on the listed parties for losses that are incurred in the province; but what if a party outside the province suffers losses (see Reference re Upper Churchill Water Rights Reversion Act, [1984] 1 SCR 297, 1984 CanLII 17 (SCC)-RRB-, or what if the exercise of authority under the Act rests upon a reckless understanding as to the constitutional underpinnings of a particular provision?

State courts have also recognized that legislative immunity provisions enshrined in state constitutions also protect this bedrock principle.12 Moreover, as one Florida appellate court noted, legislative immunity is integral to the constitutional separation of powers: «The power vested in the legislature under the Florida Constitution would be severely compromised if [the judicial branch could compel] legislators... to appear in court to explain why they voted a particular way or to describe their process of gathering information on a bill.»

In respect of non-EU law rights, the Supreme Court re-affirmed the Court of Appeal's «declaration of incompatibility» under Human Rights Act 1998, stating that the relevant provisions of the State Immunity Act are contrary to the Claimants» right of access to the court and are discriminatory.