Coleman v. Kootsillas

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that “the fact that garbage collection and disposal is a governmental function does not mean that a city cannot be held liable . . . if the activity is proprietary in nature”
• affirming a remand by the Court of Appeals to the trial court after declaring that a particular function was proprietary in nature
• establishing the requirements for the proprietary function exception to governmental immunity
• “The fact that a governmental agency pursues an activity despite consistent losses may be evidence that the primary purpose is not to make a pecuniary profit, but it is not conclusive evidence.”
• if revenue generated from activity “is used only to pay current and long-range expenses involved in operating the activity, this could indicate that the primary purpose of the activity was not to produce a pecuniary profit”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).