UBS Financial Services Inc. v. Estate of Pedro Jose Nazario Serrano

Oral argument

• Argued

  34 min recording
  Listen

Source: CourtListener oral-argument corpus (CC0).

How courts have described this case

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

• reasoning that “[t]o allow an individual to claim immunity under this provision but in turn to preclude [his] employer the same benefit of the immunity would indeed undermine the stated purpose of the limited immunity conferred under the Act”
• reasoning that \[t]o allow an individual to claim immunity under this provision but in turn to preclude [his] employer the same benefit of the immunity would indeed undermine the stated purpose of the limited immunity conferred under the Act\
• describing the MHPA’s immunity provision as “a limited immunity provision from civil and criminal liability for specific decisions regarding the treatment of the patient”
• affirming a finding that the MHPA immunity applied and holding that plaintiff failed to establish gross negligence where plaintiff claimed that she was sexually assaulted by another patient as a result of the hospital’s failure to adequately supervise and protect her
• where a term is not defined in statute, we look to the definitions section of the Statutory Construction Act
• hospital qualifies as person subject to immunity under Section 114 of the MHPA

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).