defense of sovereign immunity in Missouri

1986Referring to the purpose for delaying immediate abrogation of the defense of sovereign immunity expressed by the Supreme Court in Jones v. State Highway Commission, 557 S.W.2d at 231 ; i.e., to permit an orderly transition, adequate financial planning and adjustment of governmental policies, the Appelquist court concluded retroactive application of the 1985 statute would constitute a “bizarre denouement.” Id. at 898 .

1986Referring to the purpose for delaying immediate abrogation of the defense of sovereign immunity expressed by the Supreme Court in Jones v. State Highway Commission, 557 S.W.2d at 231 ; i.e., to permit an orderly transition, adequate financial planning and adjustment of governmental policies, the Appelquist court concluded retroactive application of the 1985 statute would constitute a “bizarre denouement.” Id. at 898 .

1997The State alternatively cites Molasky v. Brown, 720 S.W.2d 412 (Mo.App.1986) to argue that an affirmative defense need not be specifically pled where the applicability of the defense shows from the face of the pleadings.

1996The State alternatively cites Molasky v. Brown, 720 S.W.2d 412 (Mo.App.1986) to argue that an affirmative defense need not be specifically pled where the applicability of the defense shows from the face of the pleadings.

2017The District, though, argues it preserved its sovereign immunity that would have otherwise been waived by its purchase of liability insurance because its 2011-12 policy included an endorsement (“Endorsement 13”) 'stating the insurer “shall not be liable to make any payment for Loss in connection with any Claim made against any Insured '... that is barred by the defense of sovereign immunity” and “nothing contained in this Policy shall constitute a waiver of the defense of ‘sovereign immunity.n” This Court has held a political subdivision preserves its sovereign immunity when it “purchased an i

2012Id.

2010DiCarlo addressed a defense of sovereign immunity where the State had entered a contract for construction of a building but then refused to pay for extra work performed beyond the contract provisions. 485 S.W.2d at 53 .

2000Id.

1996It cites the case of Fowler v. Board of Regents for the Central Missouri State University, 637 S.W.2d 352 (Mo.App.1982) in support of its claim.

1988Id.

1985Louis Housing Authority, waived the defense of sovereign immunity by granting the authority the power "to sue and be sued." In New Liberty, supra, we rejected a similar argument, stating that the legislature's intent in using such language was to empower creditors and other proper claimants to sue for debts legitimately incurred, and not to authorize a tort suit against the governmental entity.

1985Louis Housing Authority, waived the defense of sovereign immunity by granting the authority the power “to sue and be sued.” In New Liberty, supra, we rejected a similar argument, stating that the legislature’s intent in using such language was to empower creditors and other proper claimants to sue for debts legitimately incurred, and not to authorize a tort suit against the governmental entity.

1985Louis, 499 S.W.2d 388, 389 (Mo.1973); Farthing v. Sams, 296 Mo. 442 , 247 S.W. 111 (1922), would have already run — unless tolled — before the 1985 Act became law.

1985Louis, 499 S.W.2d 388, 389 (Mo.1973); Farthing v. Sams, 296 Mo. 442 , 247 S.W. 111 (1922), would have already run — unless tolled — before the 1985 Act became law.

1985In County of Sacramento v. Superior Court of Sacramento County, 8 Cal.3d 479 , 503 P.2d 1382 , 105 Cal.Rptr. 374 (banc 1972), the specific question was raised whether prohibition was the appropriate remedy in a sovereign immunity case.

1985In County of Sacramento v. Superior Court of Sacramento County, 8 Cal.3d 479 , 503 P.2d 1382 , 105 Cal.Rptr. 374 (banc 1972), the specific question was raised whether prohibition was the appropriate remedy in a sovereign immunity case.

1981Purchase of liability insurance does not es-top a governmental entity from asserting the defense of sovereign immunity, id. at pp. 69 & 70 hence, the trial court’s ruling implicitly negating plaintiffs’ allegations of waiver is affirmed.

1981Spearman v. University City Public School District, 617 S.W.2d 68 (Mo. banc 1981).

1977On the same date that the instant case was argued, we also heard argument in three other cases where the defense of sovereign immunity against tort claims was advanced: No. 59958, Prewitt v. Parkway School District, 557 S.W.2d 232 , a claim against a school district where plaintiff, who was entering the building to register for a night class, slipped on a wet spot in the school hallway; No. 60012, Wheeler v. St.

1977On the same date that the instant case was argued, we also heard argument in three other cases where the defense of sovereign immunity against tort claims was advanced: No. 59958, Prewitt v. Parkway School District, 557 S.W.2d 232 , a claim against a school district where plaintiff, who was entering the building to register for a night class, slipped on a wet spot in the school hallway; No. 60012, Wheeler v. St.

1977Clair Hospital District, 557 S.W.2d 233 , a claim against a hospital district for a death growing out of a hospital fire allegedly caused by the hospital's negligence and No. 60042, State ex rel.

1977Clair Hospital District, 557 S.W.2d 233 , a claim against a hospital district for a death growing out of a hospital fire allegedly caused by the hospital’s negligence and No. 60042, State ex rel.