17 Massachusetts opinions name it 3 courts 1981–2025 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Massachusetts 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 |
|---|---|---|
Woodbridge v. Worcester State Hospitalgreen2 sentences2012We have found a waiver of sovereign immunity only where consent to suit is “expressed by the terms of a statute, or appear[s] by necessary implication from them.” Lopes, supra at 175-176 , quoting Woodbridge, supra. Here, the statutory scheme strongly suggests that the Legislature did not intend to waive sovereign immunity and provide hospitals with a private right of action to challenge the reasonableness of MassHealth payment rates. 2010See DeRoche v. Massachusetts Comm’n Against Discrimination, 447 Mass. 1, 12-13 (2006), quoting Woodbridge v. Worcester State Hosp., 384 Mass. 38, 42 (1981) (“Absent statutory language that indicates by express terms a waiver of sovereign immunity, the Legislature’s intent to subject the Commonwealth to liability may be found only when such an intent is clear ‘by necessary implication’ from the statute’s terms”). | 2 | 3 |
Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinezgreen2 sentences2023Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 58 (1978). 2007“It is settled that a waiver of sovereign immunity ‘cannot be implied but must be unequivocally expressed.’ ” Santa Clara Pueblo, supra at 58, quoting from United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 399 (1976). | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Testangreen2 sentences2007“It is settled that a waiver of sovereign immunity ‘cannot be implied but must be unequivocally expressed.’ ” Santa Clara Pueblo, supra at 58, quoting from United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 399 (1976). 1981“In a suit against the United States, there cannot be a right to money damages *44 without a waiver of sovereign immunity, and we regard as unsound the argument . . . that all substantive rights of necessity create a waiver of sovereign immunity such that money damages are available to redress their violation.” Id. at 400-401 . | 1 | 2 |
United States v. Shearergreen2 sentences2025In United States v. Shearer, 473 U.S. 52, 54-55 (1985), the Court addressed whether the FTCA's exception to the waiver of sovereign immunity for "[a]ny claim arising out of assault [or] battery" included a claim of "negligent failure to prevent the assault and battery." The Court concluded that the FTCA's provision was broad and covered claims "that sound in negligence but stem from a battery committed by a Government employee." Id. 2025In United States v. Shearer, 473 U.S. 52, 54-55 (1985), the Court addressed whether the FTCA's exception to the waiver of sovereign immunity for "[a]ny claim arising out of assault [or] battery" included a claim of "negligent failure to prevent the assault and battery." The Court concluded that the FTCA's provision was broad and covered claims "that sound in negligence but stem from a battery committed by a Government employee." Id. | 1 | 1 |
Randall v. Haddadgreen1 sentence2016Sovereign immunity advances important public policies, see Randall v. Haddad, 468 Mass. 347, 358 (2014), and cases cited, and the “rules of construction governing statutory waivers of sovereign immunity accordingly are stringent” (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Singer Friedlander Corp. v. State Lottery Commissiongreen1 sentence2015The court in Singer Friedlander Corp. v. State Lottery Commn., 423 Mass. 562, 565 (1996) (Singer Friedlander), addressed the same language in an earlier version of the statute 7 and concluded that “G. | 1 | 1 |
Todino v. Town of Wellfleetgreen1 sentence2015L. c. 258A in effect at the time. 6 See Todino, 448 Mass. at 241 (noting that court in Gurley held that "because . . . the payment [under the statute is] essentially a gift, no award of interest would be necessary or reasonable"). 6 General Laws c. 258A was repealed and replaced by G. | 1 | 1 |
Bates v. Director of the Office of Campaign & Political Financegreen1 sentence2015Bates v. Dir. of Office of Campaign and Political Finance, 436 Mass. 144, 174 (2002). | 1 | 1 |
Gurley v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2015While not on all fours, we find support in Gurley v. Commonwealth, 363 Mass. 595, 599-600 (1973), in which the court failed to discern by necessary implication a waiver of sovereign immunity for interest on awards for victims of violent crimes under the provisions of G. 2015While not on all fours, we find support in Gurley v. Commonwealth, 363 Mass. 595, 599-600 (1973), in which the court failed to discern by necessary implication a waiver of sovereign immunity for interest on awards for victims of violent crimes under the provisions of G. | 1 | 1 |
City of Berlin v. Stategreen1 sentence2011Compare Loeffler v. Frank, 486 U.S. 549, 561 (1988) (“when Congress intends the waiver of sovereign immunity in a new cause of action directed against [F]ederal entities to be [the] exclusive [remedy], — in effect, to limit the force of ‘sue-and-be-sued’ clauses [previously in effect] — it has said so expressly”); Berlin v. State, 124 N.H. 627, 631 (1984) (where the question is whether a statute repealed a waiver of sovereign immunity, legislative intent to do so must be clear). | 1 | 1 |
Loeffler v. Frankgreen1 sentence2011Compare Loeffler v. Frank, 486 U.S. 549, 561 (1988) (“when Congress intends the waiver of sovereign immunity in a new cause of action directed against [F]ederal entities to be [the] exclusive [remedy], — in effect, to limit the force of ‘sue-and-be-sued’ clauses [previously in effect] — it has said so expressly”); Berlin v. State, 124 N.H. 627, 631 (1984) (where the question is whether a statute repealed a waiver of sovereign immunity, legislative intent to do so must be clear). | 1 | 1 |
DeRoche v. Massachusetts Commission Against Discriminationgreen1 sentence2010See DeRoche v. Massachusetts Comm’n Against Discrimination, 447 Mass. 1, 12-13 (2006), quoting Woodbridge v. Worcester State Hosp., 384 Mass. 38, 42 (1981) (“Absent statutory language that indicates by express terms a waiver of sovereign immunity, the Legislature’s intent to subject the Commonwealth to liability may be found only when such an intent is clear ‘by necessary implication’ from the statute’s terms”). | 1 | 1 |
Gilbert McClendon Bernadine F. McClendon Norman McDanel Connie R. McDanel v. United States of America Colorado River Indian Tribal Councilgreen1 sentence2007“The issue of tribal sovereign immunity is jurisdictional in nature.” McClendon v. United States, 885 F.2d 627, 629 (9th Cir. 1989). | 1 | 1 |
School Committee of Newton v. Labor Relations Comm.green1 sentence2005L. c. 150E. 11 See School Comm. of Newton v. Labor Relations Commn., 388 Mass. 557, 579-580 (1983). | 1 | 1 |
Rhode Island v. Narragansett Indian Tribegreen1 sentence2004Moreover, to read a waiver of sovereign immunity derivatively, as the court has done, reminds me somewhat of having one party’s interpretation of the fine print of a contract brought to the other party’s attention just after that party assented to the contract. 2 Cf. State v. Narragansett Indian Tribe, 19 F.3d 685, 691 (1st Cir. 1994). | 1 | 1 |
Massachusetts Electric Co. v. Athol One, Inc.green1 sentence2000Mass. Electric Co. v. Athol One, Inc., 391 Mass. 685, 687 (1984); First Nat’l Ins. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Massachusetts. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Brown v. Office of the Commissioner of Probation
green
1 sentence2022In Brown, however, the Court found post-judgment interest to be -6- different, with a waiver of sovereign immunity only triggered by “‘uncommonly forceful language’ indicating a legislative intent that the Commonwealth should compensate plaintiffs without any loss whatsoever, including loss of the time value of the money awarded.” Id. at 679 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Lopes v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence2012We have found a waiver of sovereign immunity only where consent to suit is “expressed by the terms of a statute, or appear[s] by necessary implication from them.” Lopes, supra at 175-176 , quoting Woodbridge, supra. Here, the statutory scheme strongly suggests that the Legislature did not intend to waive sovereign immunity and provide hospitals with a private right of action to challenge the reasonableness of MassHealth payment rates. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Larson v. Domestic and Foreign Commerce Corp.
green
1 sentence1997A claim of error in the exercise of that power is therefore not sufficient.’ Larson, supra, at 690 .” Moreover, it is recognized that as against Federal officers the need to recur to such obviously strained and indirect means in order to ensure their lawful behavior has been greatly attenuated by the passage of the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346 (a) (2), 1491 (a) (1) (1994), and the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (b) (1994), providing a waiver of sovereign immunity and remedial scheme for certain money claims against the United States, and by the Administrative Procedure Act of 1976 | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.