Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
13 Vermont opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Vermont 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 |
|---|---|---|
Searles v. Agency of Transportationgreen2 sentences2019Under the VTCA, the State has waived immunity to the extent that a private analog exists and consented to suit when an injury is “caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of an employee of the State while acting within the scope of employment.” 12 V.S.A. § 5601(a); see Searles v. Agency of Transp., 171 Vt. 562, 563 , 762 A.2d 812, 813-14 (2000) (mem.) (outlining discretionary function exception). 2019Under the VTCA, the State has waived immunity to the extent that a private analog exists and consented to suit when an injury is “caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of an employee of the State while acting within the scope of employment.” 12 V.S.A. § 5601(a); see Searles v. Agency of Transp., 171 Vt. 562, 563 , 762 A.2d 812, 813-14 (2000) (mem.) (outlining discretionary function exception). | 2 | 2 |
Morse v. Vermont Division of State Buildingsgreen1 sentence2018See Morse, 136 Vt. at 255 . | 1 | 1 |
Silva v. Stevensgreen2 sentences2012According to the court, “[bjecause the State never asked to present this defense to the jury for resolution, the court would normally conclude that the State has waived the claim.” Citing Silva v. Stevens, 156 Vt. 94, 110 , 589 A.2d 852, 861 (1991), 4 the court opined that Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 49 would allow it to make a finding on an issue that was omitted in the special interrogatories to the jury. 2012According to the court, “[bjecause the State never asked to present this defense to the jury for resolution, the court would normally conclude that the State has waived the claim.” Citing Silva v. Stevens, 156 Vt. 94, 110 , 589 A.2d 852, 861 (1991), 4 the court opined that Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 49 would allow it to make a finding on an issue that was omitted in the special interrogatories to the jury. | 1 | 1 |
Denis Bail Bonds, Inc. v. Stategreen1 sentence2005However, in order to find that the State has waived its immunity under 12 V.S.A. § 5601(a), a plaintiff’s cause of action must also be “comparable to a recognized cause of action against a private entity.” Andrew v. State, 165 Vt. 263, 265 (1996) (citing Denis Bail Bonds v. State, 159 Vt. 481, 486 (1993)). | 1 | 1 |
Hillerby v. Town of Colchestergreen2 sentences2000Under the Tort Claims Act, which applies solely to state waiver of tort immunity, see id. at 274 , 706 A.2d at 448 , whether the State has waived immunity for a given cause of action is determined by the private-analog test. 2000Under the Tort Claims Act, which applies solely to state waiver of tort immunity, see id. at 274 , 706 A.2d at 448 , whether the State has waived immunity for a given cause of action is determined by the private-analog test. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Vermont. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sabia v. State
green
2 sentences2021The State has thus waived immunity “only to the extent a plaintiff’s cause of action is comparable to a recognized cause of action against a private person.” Sabia, 164 Vt. at 298 , 669 A.2d at 1191 . 2021The State has thus waived immunity “only to the extent a plaintiff’s cause of action is comparable to a recognized cause of action against a private person.” Sabia, 164 Vt. at 298 , 669 A.2d at 1191 . | 2 | 2018–2021 |
Gregory W. Zullo v. State of Vermont
green
1 sentence2019The primary purpose of the tort claims act is “to waive sovereign immunity for recognized causes of action, particularly for common law torts.” Zullo v. State, 2019 VT 1 , ¶ 18 (citing Kennery v. State, 2011 VT 121, ¶ 26 , 191 Vt. 44 ). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Kennery v. State of Vermont, Valcourt, LaBombard and Other Members of the Dept. of Public Safety
green
2 sentences2019The primary purpose of the tort claims act is “to waive sovereign immunity for recognized causes of action, particularly for common law torts.” Zullo v. State, 2019 VT 1 , ¶ 18 (citing Kennery v. State, 2011 VT 121, ¶ 26 , 191 Vt. 44 ). 2019The primary purpose of the tort claims act is “to waive sovereign immunity for recognized causes of action, particularly for common law torts.” Zullo v. State, 2019 VT 1 , ¶ 18 (citing Kennery v. State, 2011 VT 121, ¶ 26 , 191 Vt. 44 ). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Will v. Michigan Department of State Police
green
2 sentences2018Will , 491 U.S. at 66 , 109 S.Ct. 2304 . 2018Will , 491 U.S. at 66 , 109 S.Ct. 2304 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Kane v. Lamothe
green
1 sentence2017One of these exceptions is set forth in § 5601(e)(1), which protects the State from any claim “based upon the exercise or performance or failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a state agency or an employee of the state, whether or not the discretion involved is abused.” The purpose of the discretionary-function exception is to assure that courts do not 5 The State Defendants do not argue that Plaintiff’s claims are not encompassed by the waiver of immunity stated in 12 V.S.A. § 5601(a), see, e.g., Kane v. Lamothe, 2007 VT 91 , ¶¶ 6 & 7 n.3, 182 Vt. 241 , | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Kane v. Lamothe
green
1 sentence2017One of these exceptions is set forth in § 5601(e)(1), which protects the State from any claim “based upon the exercise or performance or failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a state agency or an employee of the state, whether or not the discretion involved is abused.” The purpose of the discretionary-function exception is to assure that courts do not 5 The State Defendants do not argue that Plaintiff’s claims are not encompassed by the waiver of immunity stated in 12 V.S.A. § 5601(a), see, e.g., Kane v. Lamothe, 2007 VT 91 , ¶¶ 6 & 7 n.3, 182 Vt. 241 , | 1 | 2017–2017 |
LaShay v. DEPT. OF SOCIAL & REHAB. SERV.
green
1 sentence1995Thus, the State remains immune “for governmental functions for which no private analog exists.” LaShay, 160 Vt. at 68 , 625 A.2d at 229 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
LaShay v. Department of Social & Rehabilitation Services
green
1 sentence1995Thus, the State remains immune “for governmental functions for which no private analog exists.” LaShay, 160 Vt. at 68 , 625 A.2d at 229 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. Conway
green
2 sentences1990“This action for a tax refund is a suit against the state, and therefore, is barred by sovereign immunity unless the state has waived its immunity.” Id. at 587-88 , 508 A.2d at 414 . 1990“This action for a tax refund is a suit against the state, and therefore, is barred by sovereign immunity unless the state has waived its immunity.” Id. at 587-88 , 508 A.2d at 414 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.