5 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 2006–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
John G. Robb v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2020Compare Robb v. United States, 80 F.3d 884, 887 (4th Cir. 1996) (“The FTCA, as a waiver of sovereign immunity, is strictly construed, and all ambiguities are resolved in favor of the sovereign.”), with Beloat, 50 N.E.3d at 138 (“Moreover, this Court has cautioned that discretionary immunity must be narrowly construed because it is an exception to the general rule of liability.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
Campbell v. Stategreen2 sentences2006The ITCA was the legislature’s response to Campbell v. State, 259 Ind. 55, 61-62 , 284 N.E.2d 733, 736-37 (1972) which abolished sovereign immunity in Indiana for most purposes. 2006The ITCA was the legislature’s response to Campbell v. State, 259 Ind. 55, 61-62 , 284 N.E.2d 733, 736-37 (1972) which abolished sovereign immunity in Indiana for most purposes. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
City of Beech Grove v. Cathy J. Beloatgreen1 sentence2020Compare Robb v. United States, 80 F.3d 884, 887 (4th Cir. 1996) (“The FTCA, as a waiver of sovereign immunity, is strictly construed, and all ambiguities are resolved in favor of the sovereign.”), with Beloat, 50 N.E.3d at 138 (“Moreover, this Court has cautioned that discretionary immunity must be narrowly construed because it is an exception to the general rule of liability.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Suzanne E. Esserman v. Indiana Department of Environmental Management
green
2 sentences2020“We will thus find a waiver of sovereign immunity only when the statute at issue contains an unequivocal affirmative statement that clearly evinces the legislature’s intention to subject the State to suit for the specific statutory claim asserted.” Id. 2019"We will ... find a waiver of sovereign immunity only when the statute at issue contains an unequivocal affirmative statement that clearly evinces the legislature's intention to subject the State to suit ...." Esserman , 84 N.E.3d at 1192 . [13] Here, the Tort Claims Act contains an unequivocal affirmative statement that clearly evinces the legislature's intention not to subject the State or local government to suit by persons, such as Buchanan, under the supervision of a governmental entity while on probation or assigned to a community corrections program. | 2 | 2019–2020 |
cluster 786800
green
1 sentence2013Glotzer, 374 F.3d 184 , 4 190 (2d Cir. 2004). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.