Difference between revisions of "Sovereign immunity"
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Sovereign immunity is based on the traditional view from [[England]] that "the King can do no wrong." | Sovereign immunity is based on the traditional view from [[England]] that "the King can do no wrong." | ||
| + | |||
| + | Sovereign immunity does not typically protect state or local governments when they act in a proprietary or business-like manner. | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Examples == | ||
| + | |||
| + | In ''Hayes v. Williamsville Cent. School Dist.'', (W.D.N.Y. 2007), a [[federal]] [[court]] held that the New York State Education Department had [[Eleventh Amendment]] immunity from some but not all claims asserted by a parent and student. The Department enjoyed immunity for alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, and [[Section 1983]]. It did not have immunity under the Rehabilitation Act or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, to the extent that those claims sought compensatory damages. | ||
| + | |||
| + | In ''Fowler v. Tyler Independent School Dist.'', (Tex.App.-Tyler 2007), an independent public school district that provided the venue for a high school football playoff game was a purely governmental agency. It exercised only such powers that the State delegated to it. It was not acting in a sufficiently proprietary capacity to lose its sovereign immunity and be liable for a fan who slipped and fell at a game. | ||
| + | |||
[[category:law]] | [[category:law]] | ||
Revision as of 14:44, September 13, 2007
Sovereign immunity is the doctrine that the government, state or federal, is immune to lawsuit unless it give its consent.
Sovereign immunity is based on the traditional view from England that "the King can do no wrong."
Sovereign immunity does not typically protect state or local governments when they act in a proprietary or business-like manner.
Examples
In Hayes v. Williamsville Cent. School Dist., (W.D.N.Y. 2007), a federal court held that the New York State Education Department had Eleventh Amendment immunity from some but not all claims asserted by a parent and student. The Department enjoyed immunity for alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, and Section 1983. It did not have immunity under the Rehabilitation Act or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, to the extent that those claims sought compensatory damages.
In Fowler v. Tyler Independent School Dist., (Tex.App.-Tyler 2007), an independent public school district that provided the venue for a high school football playoff game was a purely governmental agency. It exercised only such powers that the State delegated to it. It was not acting in a sufficiently proprietary capacity to lose its sovereign immunity and be liable for a fan who slipped and fell at a game.