129 New York opinions name it 10 courts 1922–2026 18 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York 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 |
|---|---|---|
Alden v. Mainegreen2 sentences2024And although Karns involved Eleventh Amendment immunity, that is a distinction without a difference when it comes to analyzing NJT's powers as traditional exemplars of State sovereignty ( see Alden v Maine , 527 US 706, 713 ["The phrase ('Eleventh Amendment immunity') is convenient shorthand but something of a misnomer, for the sovereign immunity of the States neither derives from, nor is limited by, the terms of the Eleventh Amendment. 2024And although Karns involved Eleventh Amendment immunity, that is a distinction without a difference when it comes to analyzing NJT's powers as traditional exemplars of State sovereignty ( see Alden v Maine , 527 US 706, 713 ["The phrase ('Eleventh Amendment immunity') is convenient shorthand but something of a misnomer, for the sovereign immunity of the States neither derives from, nor is limited by, the terms of the Eleventh Amendment. | 5 | 6 |
Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Hyattgreen2 sentences2024Thus, in exploring the limits of a state-created entity's sovereign immunity in our courts, our basic task is to determine whether allowing the suit to proceed under the circumstances would offend our sister State's "equal dignity and sovereignty under the Constitution" ( id. ). 2024The concurrence's efforts to preserve Hall 's distinction sound suspiciously similar to the "the type of ahistorical literalism" the Court repeatedly has "rejected in interpreting the scope of the States' sovereign immunity" ( Alden , 527 US at 730; see also Hyatt III , 587 US at 247). | 4 | 6 |
Glassman v. Glassmangreen2 sentences2023Sovereign immunity derives from the common-law premise that “no suit or action can be brought against the king, even in civil matters, because no court can have jurisdiction over him” (1 William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England at 235 [1765]; see Hyatt III, 587 US at —, 139 S Ct at 1493 ; see also Glassman v Glassman, 309 NY 436, 440 [1956]). 2021Moreover, the Eleventh Amendment preserves the state's sovereign immunity from suit in federal courts ( see Edelman v Jordan , 415 US 651, 662-663 [1974]; Hans v Louisiana , 134 US 1, 10 [1890]), and in no way implicates the state's sovereign immunity from suit in its own courts, which is derived not from the US Constitution, but from the ancient common law ( see Glassman v Glassman , 309 NY 436, 440 [1956]). | 4 | 6 |
Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinezgreen2 sentences2004IV The Seneca Nation Is Not an Indispensable Party The State contends that the action cannot continue in the absence of the Seneca Nation, which cannot be made a party due to the Nation’s sovereign immunity (see Santa Clara Pueblo v Martinez, 436 US 49, 58 [1978]). 2004The Seneca Nation Is Not an Indispensable Party The State contends that the action cannot continue in the absence of the Seneca Nation, which cannot be made a party due to the Nation's sovereign immunity ( see Santa Clara Pueblo v Martinez , 436 US 49, 58 [1978]). | 3 | 3 |
Nevada v. Hallred2 sentences2023Hyatt overruled Nevada v Hall ( 440 US 410, 426 ), in which the Court held that "[n]othing in the Federal Constitution authorizes or obligates" a forum state to respect the sovereign immunity of a defendant sister State ( id. at 425-427 ). 2023Hyatt overruled Nevada v Hall ( 440 US 410, 426 ), in which the Court held that "[n]othing in the Federal Constitution authorizes or obligates" a forum state to respect the sovereign immunity of a defendant sister State ( id. at 425-427 ). | 2 | 5 |
Tango v. Tulevechgreen2 sentences1999While “almost any act admits some discretion in the manner of performance, even driving a nail” (Prosser, Torts § 132, at 990 [4th ed]), the State is protected by the doctrine of sovereign immunity only when its action “involves the exercise of discretion or expert judgment in policy matters, and is not exclusively ministerial” (Haddock v City of New York, 75 NY2d 478, 484 ) “[Discretionary or quasi-judicial acts involve the exercise of reasoned judgment which could typically produce different acceptable results whereas a ministerial act envisions direct adherence to a governing rule or standa 1999While “almost any act admits some discretion in the manner of performance, even driving a nail” (Prosser, Torts § 132, at 990 [4th ed]), the State is protected by the doctrine of sovereign immunity only when its action “involves the exercise of discretion or expert judgment in policy matters, and is not exclusively ministerial” (Haddock v City of New York, 75 NY2d 478, 484 ) “[Discretionary or quasi-judicial acts involve the exercise of reasoned judgment which could typically produce different acceptable results whereas a ministerial act envisions direct adherence to a governing rule or standa | 2 | 4 |
People Ex Rel. Swift v. . Lucegreen2 sentences2017Swift v Luce ( 204 NY 478 [1912]) that the doctrine of sovereign immunity and the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Claims did not amount to limitations on the jurisdiction of Supreme Court, Swift was decided prior to the amendment to the New York Constitution, effective January 1950, that created the Court of Claims as a constitutional court of record (see Easley v New York State Thruway Auth., 1 NY2d 374, 377 [1956]). 2017Swift v Luce ( 204 NY 478 [1912]) that the doctrine of sovereign immunity and the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Claims did not amount to limitations on the jurisdiction of Supreme Court, Swift was decided prior to the amendment to the New York Constitution, effective January 1950, that created the Court of - 8 - - 9 - No. 5 Because it concluded in this case that there is no jurisdictional bar against suing the State in Supreme Court, the Appellate Division did not consider defendant's argument that the word "jurisdiction" in the statute refers to personal jurisdiction, as opposed to s | 2 | 3 |
Lewis v. Clarkegreen2 sentences2025“Defendants in an official-capacity action may assert sovereign immunity” (Lewis v Clarke, 581 US 155, 163 [2017]). 2024A Native American nation's sovereign immunity extends to its officials acting in their official capacities and within the scope of their authority, including for actions undertaken off-reservation, and a plaintiff may not circumvent a Native American nation's sovereign immunity by nominally suing its officials ( see Lewis v Clarke , 581 US 155, 163 ["Defendants in an official-capacity action may assert sovereign immunity"]; Cook v Avi Casino Enters., Inc. , 548 F3d 718, 727 [9th Cir] ["Tribal sovereign immunity extends to tribal officials when acting in their official capacity and within the s | 2 | 2 |
Hess v. Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporationgreen2 sentences2024Our analysis aligns with the framework many courts apply in analyzing whether a state-created entity may invoke sovereign immunity in federal court—often called "Eleventh Amendment immunity" [FN1] —which is rooted in the same pre-ratification notions of State dignity ( see Federal Maritime Comm'n v South Carolina Ports Authority , 535 US 743, 760 [2002] ["The preeminent purpose of state sovereign immunity is to accord States the dignity that is consistent with their status as sovereign entities"]; Seminole Tribe of Fla. v Florida , 517 US 44, 58 [1996] [sovereign immunity "serves to avoid the 2024Our analysis aligns with the framework many courts apply in analyzing whether a state-created entity may invoke sovereign immunity in federal court—often called "Eleventh Amendment immunity" [FN1] —which is rooted in the same pre-ratification notions of State dignity ( see Federal Maritime Comm'n v South Carolina Ports Authority , 535 US 743, 760 [2002] ["The preeminent purpose of state sovereign immunity is to accord States the dignity that is consistent with their status as sovereign entities"]; Seminole Tribe of Fla. v Florida , 517 US 44, 58 [1996] [sovereign immunity "serves to avoid the | 2 | 2 |
Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Communitygreen2 sentences2024However, notwithstanding sovereign immunity, Native Americans "going beyond reservation boundaries are subject to any generally applicable state law," "[u]nless federal law provides differently" ( Michigan v Bay Mills Indian Community , 572 US at 795 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Wagnon v Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation , 546 US 95, 113 ; Gingras v Think Fin., Inc. , 922 F3d 112, 121 [2d Cir]). 2014IL Tribes are “ ‘separate sovereigns pre-existing the [United States] Constitution’ ” (Michigan v Bay Mills Indian Community, 572 US —, —, 134 S Ct 2024, 2030 [2014], quoting Santa Clara Pueblo v Martinez, 436 US 49, 56 [1978]), and possess “ ‘common-law immunity from suit traditionally enjoyed by sovereign powers’ ” (id., quoting Santa Clara Pueblo, 436 US at 58 ). | 2 | 2 |
Long v. State of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2022As a waiver of the State's sovereign immunity from suit, the "requirements of [section 8-b] are to be strictly construed" ( Gioeli v State of New York , 39 AD3d 815, 816 [2d [*2]Dept 2007]; see Long , 7 NY3d at 276 ), and a wrongful conviction and imprisonment claim therefore cannot be maintained if the criminal judgment was vacated on a non-enumerated ground ( see Jeanty v State of New York , 175 AD3d 1073 , 1074 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 34 NY3d 912 [2020]; see also Baba-Ali v State of New York , 19 NY3d 627 , 633 n 5 [2012]). 2019As a waiver of the State's sovereign immunity from suit, the "requirements of [section 8-b] are to be strictly construed" (Gioeli v State of New York, 39 AD3d 815, 816 [2d Dept 2007]; see Long, 7 NY3d at 276 ), and a wrongful conviction and imprisonment claim therefore cannot be maintained if the criminal judgment was vacated on a non-enumerated ground, such as CPL 440.10 (1) (f) or (h) (see [*2]Baba-Ali v State of New York, 19 NY3d 627 , 633 n 5 [2012]). | 2 | 2 |
Don Karns v. Kathleen Shanahangreen2 sentences2022In denying the motion, Supreme Court noted that defendants had taken "three years to raise a jurisdictionally based objection" and reasoned that, "[t]o hold NJT immune from suit for negligence in motor vehicle accidents in New York would constitute a miscarriage of justice to the victims of accidents involving NJT vehicles, which operate in New York on a daily basis." We have previously held that NJT is an arm of the State of New Jersey and that, as such, it is entitled to invoke the doctrine of sovereign immunity ( see Fetahu , 197 AD3d at 1065 , citing Karns v Shanahan , 879 F3d 504, 512-519 2022In denying the motion, Supreme Court noted that defendants had taken "three years to raise a jurisdictionally based objection" and reasoned that, "[t]o hold NJT immune from suit for negligence in motor vehicle accidents in New York would constitute a miscarriage of justice to the victims of accidents involving NJT vehicles, which operate in New York on a daily basis." We have previously held that NJT is an arm of the State of New Jersey and that, as such, it is entitled to invoke the doctrine of sovereign immunity ( see Fetahu , 197 AD3d at 1065 , citing Karns v Shanahan , 879 F3d 504, 512-519 | 2 | 2 |
Muhammad v. New Jersey Transitgreen2 sentences2022In denying the motion, Supreme Court noted that defendants had taken "three years to raise a jurisdictionally based objection" and reasoned that, "[t]o hold NJT immune from suit for negligence in motor vehicle accidents in New York would constitute a miscarriage of justice to the victims of accidents involving NJT vehicles, which operate in New York on a daily basis." We have previously held that NJT is an arm of the State of New Jersey and that, as such, it is entitled to invoke the doctrine of sovereign immunity ( see Fetahu , 197 AD3d at 1065 , citing Karns v Shanahan , 879 F3d 504, 512-519 2022In denying the motion, Supreme Court noted that defendants had taken "three years to raise a jurisdictionally based objection" and reasoned that, "[t]o hold NJT immune from suit for negligence in motor vehicle accidents in New York would constitute a miscarriage of justice to the victims of accidents involving NJT vehicles, which operate in New York on a daily basis." We have previously held that NJT is an arm of the State of New Jersey and that, as such, it is entitled to invoke the doctrine of sovereign immunity ( see Fetahu , 197 AD3d at 1065 , citing Karns v Shanahan , 879 F3d 504, 512-519 | 2 | 2 |
Gioeli v. Stategreen2 sentences2022As a waiver of the State's sovereign immunity from suit, the "requirements of [section 8-b] are to be strictly construed" ( Gioeli v State of New York , 39 AD3d 815, 816 [2d [*2]Dept 2007]; see Long , 7 NY3d at 276 ), and a wrongful conviction and imprisonment claim therefore cannot be maintained if the criminal judgment was vacated on a non-enumerated ground ( see Jeanty v State of New York , 175 AD3d 1073 , 1074 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 34 NY3d 912 [2020]; see also Baba-Ali v State of New York , 19 NY3d 627 , 633 n 5 [2012]). 2019As a waiver of the State's sovereign immunity from suit, the "requirements of [section 8-b] are to be strictly construed" (Gioeli v State of New York, 39 AD3d 815, 816 [2d Dept 2007]; see Long, 7 NY3d at 276 ), and a wrongful conviction and imprisonment claim therefore cannot be maintained if the criminal judgment was vacated on a non-enumerated ground, such as CPL 440.10 (1) (f) or (h) (see [*2]Baba-Ali v State of New York, 19 NY3d 627 , 633 n 5 [2012]). | 2 | 2 |
Baba-Ali v. Stategreen2 sentences2022As a waiver of the State's sovereign immunity from suit, the "requirements of [section 8-b] are to be strictly construed" ( Gioeli v State of New York , 39 AD3d 815, 816 [2d [*2]Dept 2007]; see Long , 7 NY3d at 276 ), and a wrongful conviction and imprisonment claim therefore cannot be maintained if the criminal judgment was vacated on a non-enumerated ground ( see Jeanty v State of New York , 175 AD3d 1073 , 1074 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 34 NY3d 912 [2020]; see also Baba-Ali v State of New York , 19 NY3d 627 , 633 n 5 [2012]). 2019As a waiver of the State's sovereign immunity from suit, the "requirements of [section 8-b] are to be strictly construed" (Gioeli v State of New York, 39 AD3d 815, 816 [2d Dept 2007]; see Long, 7 NY3d at 276 ), and a wrongful conviction and imprisonment claim therefore cannot be maintained if the criminal judgment was vacated on a non-enumerated ground, such as CPL 440.10 (1) (f) or (h) (see [*2]Baba-Ali v State of New York, 19 NY3d 627 , 633 n 5 [2012]). | 2 | 2 |
| Edelman v. Jordangreen | 2 | 2 |
| Duffy v. County of Chautauquagreen | 2 | 2 |
| Lapidus v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
| National Westminster Bank, USA v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
Fetahu v. New Jersey Tr. Corp.green2 sentences2022In denying the motion, Supreme Court noted that defendants had taken "three years to raise a jurisdictionally based objection" and reasoned that, "[t]o hold NJT immune from suit for negligence in motor vehicle accidents in New York would constitute a miscarriage of justice to the victims of accidents involving NJT vehicles, which operate in New York on a daily basis." We have previously held that NJT is an arm of the State of New Jersey and that, as such, it is entitled to invoke the doctrine of sovereign immunity ( see Fetahu , 197 AD3d at 1065 , citing Karns v Shanahan , 879 F3d 504, 512-519 2022In denying the motion, Supreme Court noted that defendants had taken "three years to raise a jurisdictionally based objection" and reasoned that, "[t]o hold NJT immune from suit for negligence in motor vehicle accidents in New York would constitute a miscarriage of justice to the victims of accidents involving NJT vehicles, which operate in New York on a daily basis." We have previously held that NJT is an arm of the State of New Jersey and that, as such, it is entitled to invoke the doctrine of sovereign immunity ( see Fetahu , 197 AD3d at 1065 , citing Karns v Shanahan , 879 F3d 504, 512-519 | 1 | 4 |
Ransom v. ST. REGIS FUNDgreen2 sentences2014The Appellate Division found that most of the Ransom factors, and in particular those that the Ransom court "characterized as the '[m]ore important[]' financial factors, weigh in favor of a determination that [Lewiston Golf] does not share in the Nation's sovereign immunity" (109 AD3d at 88, quoting Ransom, 86 NY2d at 559 [square brackets in Appellate Division opinion]). 2014The Appellate Division found that most of the Ransom factors, and in particular those that the Ransom court “characterized as the £[m]ore important ]’ financial factors, weigh in favor of a determination that [Lewiston Golf] does not share in the Nation’s sovereign immunity” (109 AD3d at 88, quoting Ransom, 86 NY2d at 559 [some brackets in Appellate Division opinion]). | 1 | 4 |
Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Floridagreen2 sentences2005Note, the United States Supreme Court has held that the Indian Commerce Clause does not grant Congress the power to abrogate the states’ sovereign immunity from suit through 25 USC § 2710 (d) (7), “and therefore § 2710 (d) (7) cannot grant jurisdiction over a State that does not consent to be sued” (Seminole Tribe, 517 US at 47 ). 2005Note, the United States Supreme Court has held that the Indian Commerce Clause does not grant Congress the power to abrogate the states' sovereign immunity from suit through 25 USC § 2710 (d) (7), "and therefore § 2710 (d) (7) cannot grant jurisdiction over a State that does not consent to be sued" ( Seminole Tribe, 517 US at 47 ). | 1 | 3 |
Brown v. State of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2011Sovereign immunity is “the historic immunity derived from the State’s status as a sovereign and protects the State from suit” (Brown v State of New York, 89 NY2d 172, 192 [1996]), whereas governmental immunity, legislative immunity, or judicial immunity are defenses where “as a matter of policy, the courts have foreclosed liability” (id. at 192). 2001At common law, the doctrine of sovereign immunity generally shielded a state from suit absent its consent (see, Brown v State of New York, 89 NY2d 172, 179 ). | 1 | 3 |
Arteaga v. State of New Yorkgreen2 sentences1999Greenberg v Reid, 151 App Div 324, 327 ), and where, as here, State “employees act under the authority of and in full compliance with the governing statutes and regulations [omitted here], their actions constitute discretionary conduct of a quasi-judicial nature for which the State has absolute immunity.” (Arteaga v State of New York, 72 NY2d 212, 214 ; see also, Negron v State of New York, 218 AD2d 209 , lv denied 88 NY2d 805 [action based on acts or omissions of a hearing committee convened by the State Board for Professional Medical Conduct is precluded by the doctrine of sovereign immunity 1999Greenberg v Reid, 151 App Div 324, 327 ), and where, as here, State “employees act under the authority of and in full compliance with the governing statutes and regulations [omitted here], their actions constitute discretionary conduct of a quasi-judicial nature for which the State has absolute immunity.” (Arteaga v State of New York, 72 NY2d 212, 214 ; see also, Negron v State of New York, 218 AD2d 209 , lv denied 88 NY2d 805 [action based on acts or omissions of a hearing committee convened by the State Board for Professional Medical Conduct is precluded by the doctrine of sovereign immunity | 1 | 3 |
Weiss v. Fotegreen2 sentences1996The Committee’s exercise of discretion was quasi-judicial in nature for which the State is protected by absolute immunity (see, Arteaga v State of New York, 72 NY2d 212, 214 ; Tango v Tulevech, 61 NY2d 34 ; Weiss v Fote, 7 NY2d 579 ). 1996The Committee’s exercise of discretion was quasi-judicial in nature for which the State is protected by absolute immunity (see, Arteaga v State of New York, 72 NY2d 212, 214 ; Tango v Tulevech, 61 NY2d 34 ; Weiss v Fote, 7 NY2d 579 ). | 1 | 3 |
Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Haldermangreen2 sentences2024Although lawsuits under an Ex parte Young theory are an exception to the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the doctrine does not apply when the sovereign is the real, substantial party in interest ( see Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy v Stewart , 563 US 247, 254-255 ; Pennhurst State School and Hospital v Halderman , 465 US at 101 ; Jamul Action Comm. v Simermeyer , 974 F3d 984, 994 [9th Cir]), "as when the 'judgment sought would expend itself on the public treasury or domain, or interfere with public administration'" ( Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy v Stewart , 563 US a 2024Although lawsuits under an Ex parte Young theory are an exception to the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the doctrine does not apply when the sovereign is the real, substantial party in interest ( see Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy v Stewart , 563 US 247, 254-255 ; Pennhurst State School and Hospital v Halderman , 465 US at 101 ; Jamul Action Comm. v Simermeyer , 974 F3d 984, 994 [9th Cir]), "as when the 'judgment sought would expend itself on the public treasury or domain, or interfere with public administration'" ( Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy v Stewart , 563 US a | 1 | 2 |
| Alston v. State of New Yorkgreen | 1 | 2 |
| Easley v. New York State Thruway Authoritygreen | 1 | 2 |
| Will v. Michigan Department of State Policegreen | 1 | 2 |
| Williams v. Stategreen | 1 | 2 |
| Oakes Manufacturing Co. v. City of New Yorkgreen | 1 | 2 |
| United States v. Sherwoodgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Morell v. Balasubramaniangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Tanvir v. FNU Tanzingreen | 1 | 1 |
| Jamul Action Committee v. E. Sequoyah Simermeyergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Schooner Exchange v. McFaddongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Native American Distributing v. Seneca-Cayuga Tobacco Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Ford Motor Co. v. Department of Treasurygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Upper Skagit Tribe v. Lundgrengreen | 1 | 1 |
| Federal Maritime Commission v. South Carolina State Ports Authoritygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bernardine v. City of New York
green
2 sentences1989Although governments have always had that duty, formerly claims against them were barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity and could not be enforced (see, Schuster v City of New York, 5 NY2d 75, 83 ; Bernadine v City of New York, 294 NY 361 ). 1989Although governments have always had that duty, formerly claims against them were barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity and could not be enforced (see, Schuster v City of New York, 5 NY2d 75, 83 ; Bernadine v City of New York, 294 NY 361 ). | 4 | 1947–1989 |
Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno
green
2 sentences2024Plaintiffs cannot seek redress for NJT's tortious conduct in New York state courts under the doctrine of sovereign immunity and are precluded from suing in New Jersey state courts merely because the cause of action did not arise in that state (see Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 ,254 n. 22, 102 S. Ct. 252 , 70 L.Ed.2d 419 [1981] [" "]). 2024Plaintiffs cannot seek redress for NJT's tortious conduct in New York state courts under the doctrine of sovereign immunity and are precluded from suing in New Jersey state courts merely because the cause of action did not arise in that state (see Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 ,254 n. 22, 102 S. Ct. 252 , 70 L.Ed.2d 419 [1981] [" "]). | 3 | 2022–2024 |
First National Bank of Atlanta v. Bartow County Board of Tax Assessors
green
2 sentences1995Apache Tribe, 779 F2d 476, 479 [9th Cir]; Snow v Quinault Indian Nation, 709 F2d 1319, 1321 [9th Cir 1983], cert denied 467 US 1214 ). 1988If it is determined that the officials were acting beyond the scope of their tribal authority or acting other than in their representative capacity, suit against those officials would not be barred by their assertion of the tribe’s sovereign immunity (Snow v Quinault Indian Nation, 709 F2d 1319, 1321, cert denied 467 US 1214 ; Babbitt Ford v Navajo Indian Tribe, 519 F Supp 418, 425 , mod on other grounds 710 F2d 587, cert denied 466 US 926 ; see, Larson v Domestic & Foreign Corp., 337 US 682, 689 ). | 3 | 1988–1995 |
Matter of United States of Mexico v. Schmuck
green
2 sentences1987Assets of the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund, held by the bank, as draweepayor, are immune from seizure pursuant to an order of a court of this State under the doctrine of sovereign immunity (Matter of Means v Means, 60 Misc 2d 538 , citing Matter of United States of Mexico v Schmuck, 294 NY 265 ). 1987Assets of the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund, held by the bank, as draweepayor, are immune from seizure pursuant to an order of a court of this State under the doctrine of sovereign immunity (Matter of Means v Means, 60 Misc 2d 538 , citing Matter of United States of Mexico v Schmuck, 294 NY 265 ). | 3 | 1969–1987 |
Jattan v. Queens College of City University of New York
green
2 sentences2025Immunity under NYCHRL While, the State waived its sovereign immunity to suit under the NYSHRL, “the City of New York does not have the power to waive the State's sovereign immunity by passing an anti- discrimination code provision applicable to instrumentalities of the State” (Jattan, 64 AD3d at 542 ). 2011In Jattan , the Second Department, however, held that attorneys’ fees could not be recovered because “the City of New York does not have the power to waive the State’s sovereign immunity by passing an antidiscrimination code provision applicable to instrumentalities of the State” such as the City University ( 64 AD3d at 542 ). | 2 | 2011–2025 |
Ex Parte Young
green
2 sentences2024The majority, relying on Ex parte Young ( 209 US 123 ), nevertheless concludes that this action may proceed against the Shinnecock Nation Trustees to the extent the State seeks prospective injunctive relief for off-reservation violations of State law. 2016The parties initially debate whether petitioners primarily are seeking monetary or equitable relief, whether the relief sought is retroactive or prospective in nature and the corresponding extent to which either the doctrine of sovereign immunity bars petitioners’ claims or the exception carved out by Ex parte Young ( 209 US 123 [1908]) allows certain of those claims to survive. | 2 | 2016–2024 |
Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. Citizen Band of Potawatomi Tribe of Okla.
green
2 sentences2024Footnote 10: In Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v Citizen Band Potawatomi Tribe of Okla. ( 498 US 505, 514 ), the Supreme Court stated that negotiations between states and Native American nations, as well as seeking appropriate legislation from Congress, are adequate alternatives to actions against Native American nations themselves when such actions are barred by the nations' sovereign immunity ( but see Upper Skagit Tribe v Lundgren , 584 US 554, 562 [Roberts, Ch. 1993We come finally to Oklahoma Tax Commn. v Potawatomi Tribe ( 498 US 505 ), decided in 1991, in which the United States Supreme Court held that the doctrine of sovereign immunity did not excuse a tribe from all obligations to assist in the collection of a validly imposed Oklahoma tax on sales of cigarettes made at a convenience store owned and operated by the tribe on land held in trust for it by the Federal Government. | 2 | 1993–2024 |
Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Hyatt
green
2 sentences2022The majority is again wrong in stating that the Supreme Court in Hyatt "did not address the dilemma of permitting California to have the action dismissed in Nevada based on the sovereign immunity defense and California's immunity from suit, which would foreclose plaintiffs from suing defendants in California, essentially denying plaintiffs a forum to seek [*12]redress for the tortious conduct by California state actors." The Supreme Court, in holding that the action had to be dismissed on the ground of sovereign immunity, was fully cognizant of the fact that the claim in Hyatt would not have b 2022The majority is again wrong in stating that the Supreme Court in Hyatt "did not address the dilemma of permitting California to have the action dismissed in Nevada based on the sovereign immunity defense and California's immunity from suit, which would foreclose plaintiffs from suing defendants in California, essentially denying plaintiffs a forum to seek [*12]redress for the tortious conduct by California state actors." The Supreme Court, in holding that the action had to be dismissed on the ground of sovereign immunity, was fully cognizant of the fact that the claim in Hyatt would not have b | 2 | 2022–2022 |
| Hyatt v. County of Passaic green | 2 | 2021–2021 |
| College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board green | 2 | 2021–2021 |
| Ritchie v. Cahall green | 2 | 2021–2021 |
| National Westminster Bank, USA v. State green | 2 | 2013–2013 |
| Finnerty v. New York State Thruway Authority green | 2 | 1997–2011 |
| Ehrlich-Bober & Co. v. University of Houston green | 2 | 1997–2005 |
| Haddock v. City of New York green | 2 | 1999–1999 |
| Tarter v. State of New York green | 2 | 1996–1999 |
| Patterson v. Council of the Seneca Nation green | 2 | 1995–1995 |
| Means v. Means neutral | 2 | 1987–1987 |
| Smith v. . State of New York green | 2 | 1941–1980 |
| McCrink v. City of New York green | 2 | 1955–1975 |
| Willcox v. County of Erie green | 2 | 1937–1939 |
| Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy v. Stewart green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Regents of University of California v. Doe green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Idaho v. Coeur D'Alene Tribe of Idaho green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Simmons v. Himmelreich green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Kentucky v. Graham green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Fry v. Village of Tarrytown green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
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.