10 Alaska opinions name it 1 courts 1972–2009 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Alaska 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 |
|---|---|---|
Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinezgreen2 sentences1992Venetie argues that this clause contains no express waiver of its immunity, and that a waiver of sovereign immunity cannot be implied. [1] See Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 58 , 98 S.Ct. 1670, 1676 , 56 L.Ed.2d 106 (1978) (a waiver of sovereign immunity cannot be implied but must be unequivocally expressed). 1992Venetie argues that this clause contains no express waiver of its immunity, and that a waiver of sovereign immunity cannot be implied. [1] See Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 58 , 98 S.Ct. 1670, 1676 , 56 L.Ed.2d 106 (1978) (a waiver of sovereign immunity cannot be implied but must be unequivocally expressed). | 1 | 4 |
State v. Abbottgreen2 sentences1980This statute, AS 09.50.-250, 3 which grants immunity for discretionary governmental activities, has been discussed several times in this court’s opinions. *688 In State v. Abbott, 498 P.2d 712, 717-22 (Alaska 1972), we addressed the problem of interpretation of the discretionary function exception in a waiver of sovereign immunity context. 1977We thus hold that the state’s alleged failures in not providing an overpass, not lowering the speed limit, not posting school warning signs, and not providing additional controlled crossings on College Road, come within the ambit of the discretionary function exception to the waiver of sovereign immunity of AS 09.50.250. 25 We have been called upon to interpret the discretionary function exception on several occasions. 26 In State v. Abbott, 498 P.2d 712 (Alaska 1972), and reaffirmed in State v. I’Anson, 529 P.2d 188 (Alaska 1974), we adopted the planning-operational test in determining whethe | 1 | 2 |
Wendelken v. Jenk, LLCgreen2 sentences2009Cf. Wendelken v. JENK LLC, 291 Ga.App. 30 , 661 S.E.2d 152, 155 (2008) (applying the rule that the party seeking to benefit from a waiver of sovereign immunity must establish that the government's sovereign immunity has been waived because immunity from suit is a privilege and not an affirmative defense); Drake v. Smith, 390 A.2d 541, 543 (Me.1978) (declining to address whether jurisdictional grounds were the basis of its holding that "in the absence of specific authority conferred by [a legislative enactment], the sovereign's immunity from suit cannot be waived through the imposition of proce 2009Cf. Wendelken v. JENK LLC, 291 Ga.App. 30 , 661 S.E.2d 152, 155 (2008) (applying the rule that the party seeking to benefit from a waiver of sovereign immunity must establish that the government's sovereign immunity has been waived because immunity from suit is a privilege and not an affirmative defense); Drake v. Smith, 390 A.2d 541, 543 (Me.1978) (declining to address whether jurisdictional grounds were the basis of its holding that "in the absence of specific authority conferred by [a legislative enactment], the sovereign's immunity from suit cannot be waived through the imposition of proce | 1 | 1 |
Drake v. Smithgreen1 sentence2009Cf. Wendelken v. JENK LLC, 291 Ga.App. 30 , 661 S.E.2d 152, 155 (2008) (applying the rule that the party seeking to benefit from a waiver of sovereign immunity must establish that the government's sovereign immunity has been waived because immunity from suit is a privilege and not an affirmative defense); Drake v. Smith, 390 A.2d 541, 543 (Me.1978) (declining to address whether jurisdictional grounds were the basis of its holding that "in the absence of specific authority conferred by [a legislative enactment], the sovereign's immunity from suit cannot be waived through the imposition of proce | 1 | 1 |
Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jonesgreen2 sentences1988The United States Supreme Court has held that "[t]he Reorganization Act did not strip Indian tribes ... of their historic immunity from state and local control." Mescalero Apache Tribe, 411 U.S. at 152 , 93 S.Ct. at 1267 , 36 L.Ed.2d at 121 . [4] Although I agree with the court's *45 conclusion that IRA incorporation alone does not constitute federal recognition of tribal status, see infra note 6, I cannot agree that this Act, when combined with the previous enactments, somehow constitutes a waiver of sovereign immunity. 1988The United States Supreme Court has held that "[t]he Reorganization Act did not strip Indian tribes ... of their historic immunity from state and local control." Mescalero Apache Tribe, 411 U.S. at 152 , 93 S.Ct. at 1267 , 36 L.Ed.2d at 121 . [4] Although I agree with the court's *45 conclusion that IRA incorporation alone does not constitute federal recognition of tribal status, see infra note 6, I cannot agree that this Act, when combined with the previous enactments, somehow constitutes a waiver of sovereign immunity. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Kinggreen2 sentences1983Eyak relies upon Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 , 98 S.Ct. 1670 , 56 L.Ed.2d 106 (1978), in which the United States Supreme Court stated, “a waiver of sovereign immunity ‘ “cannot be implied but must be unequivocally expressed.’”” 436 U.S. at 58 , 98 S.Ct. at 1677, 56 L.Ed.2d at 115 (quoting United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1, 4 , 89 S.Ct. 1501, 1502 , 23 L.Ed.2d 52, 56 (1969), quoted in United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 399 , 96 S.Ct. 948, 953 , 47 L.Ed.2d 114, 121 (1976)). 1983Eyak relies upon Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 , 98 S.Ct. 1670 , 56 L.Ed.2d 106 (1978), in which the United States Supreme Court stated, “a waiver of sovereign immunity ‘ “cannot be implied but must be unequivocally expressed.’”” 436 U.S. at 58 , 98 S.Ct. at 1677, 56 L.Ed.2d at 115 (quoting United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1, 4 , 89 S.Ct. 1501, 1502 , 23 L.Ed.2d 52, 56 (1969), quoted in United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 399 , 96 S.Ct. 948, 953 , 47 L.Ed.2d 114, 121 (1976)). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Testangreen2 sentences1983Eyak relies upon Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 , 98 S.Ct. 1670 , 56 L.Ed.2d 106 (1978), in which the United States Supreme Court stated, “a waiver of sovereign immunity ‘ “cannot be implied but must be unequivocally expressed.’”” 436 U.S. at 58 , 98 S.Ct. at 1677, 56 L.Ed.2d at 115 (quoting United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1, 4 , 89 S.Ct. 1501, 1502 , 23 L.Ed.2d 52, 56 (1969), quoted in United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 399 , 96 S.Ct. 948, 953 , 47 L.Ed.2d 114, 121 (1976)). 1983Eyak relies upon Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 , 98 S.Ct. 1670 , 56 L.Ed.2d 106 (1978), in which the United States Supreme Court stated, “a waiver of sovereign immunity ‘ “cannot be implied but must be unequivocally expressed.’”” 436 U.S. at 58 , 98 S.Ct. at 1677, 56 L.Ed.2d at 115 (quoting United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1, 4 , 89 S.Ct. 1501, 1502 , 23 L.Ed.2d 52, 56 (1969), quoted in United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 399 , 96 S.Ct. 948, 953 , 47 L.Ed.2d 114, 121 (1976)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alaska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Native Village of Eyak v. GC Contractors
green
2 sentences1992In Native Village of Eyak v. GC Contractors, 658 P.2d 756 (Alaska 1983), we held that a tribe waives its sovereign immunity by agreeing to contract terms inconsistent with sovereign immunity. 1992In Native Village of Eyak v. GC Contractors, 658 P.2d 756 (Alaska 1983), we held that a tribe waives its sovereign immunity by agreeing to contract terms inconsistent with sovereign immunity. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Atkinson v. Haldane
green
2 sentences1992Atkinson, 569 P.2d at 152-53 . 1992Atkinson, 569 P.2d at 152-53 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
cluster 449548
green
2 sentences1988Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has “rejected the contention that congressional enactments unrelated to immunity may implicitly grant authority to bring suit against Indian tribes.” Chemehuevi Indian Tribe v. California State Bd. of Equalization, 757 F.2d 1047 , 1053 (9th Cir.) (compulsory counterclaim requirement of Rule 13(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure held not to be waiver of tribal immunity), rev’d on other grounds, 474 U.S. 9 , 106 S.Ct. 289 , 88 L.Ed.2d 9 (1985). 1988Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has "rejected the contention that congressional enactments unrelated to immunity may implicitly grant authority to bring suit against Indian tribes." Chemehuevi Indian Tribe v. California State Bd. of Equalization, 757 F.2d 1047 , 1053 (9th Cir.) (compulsory counterclaim requirement of Rule 13(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure held not to be waiver of tribal immunity), rev'd on other grounds, 474 U.S. 9 , 106 S.Ct. 289 , 88 L.Ed.2d 9 (1985). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
California State Board of Equalization v. Chemehuevi Indian Tribe
green
2 sentences1988Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has "rejected the contention that congressional enactments unrelated to immunity may implicitly grant authority to bring suit against Indian tribes." Chemehuevi Indian Tribe v. California State Bd. of Equalization, 757 F.2d 1047 , 1053 (9th Cir.) (compulsory counterclaim requirement of Rule 13(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure held not to be waiver of tribal immunity), rev'd on other grounds, 474 U.S. 9 , 106 S.Ct. 289 , 88 L.Ed.2d 9 (1985). 1988Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has "rejected the contention that congressional enactments unrelated to immunity may implicitly grant authority to bring suit against Indian tribes." Chemehuevi Indian Tribe v. California State Bd. of Equalization, 757 F.2d 1047 , 1053 (9th Cir.) (compulsory counterclaim requirement of Rule 13(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure held not to be waiver of tribal immunity), rev'd on other grounds, 474 U.S. 9 , 106 S.Ct. 289 , 88 L.Ed.2d 9 (1985). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Engineering, P. C.
green
2 sentences1988One of the clear purposes of the IRA was to revitalize tribal self-government, see, e.g., Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, 411 U.S. 145, 151-52 , 93 S.Ct. 1267, 1272 , 36 L.Ed.2d 114, 121 (1973), and sovereign immunity "is a necessary corollary to Indian sovereignty and self-governance." Three Affiliated Tribes, 476 U.S. at 890 , 106 S.Ct. at 2313 , 90 L.Ed.2d at 894 . 1988One of the clear purposes of the IRA was to revitalize tribal self-government, see, e.g., Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, 411 U.S. 145, 151-52 , 93 S.Ct. 1267, 1272 , 36 L.Ed.2d 114, 121 (1973), and sovereign immunity "is a necessary corollary to Indian sovereignty and self-governance." Three Affiliated Tribes, 476 U.S. at 890 , 106 S.Ct. at 2313 , 90 L.Ed.2d at 894 . | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Webb v. City and Borough of Sitka
green
1 sentence1979State’s Liability for Damage Caused by Wild Animals Since the State’s conduct in this case is not within the discretionary act exception to the waiver of sovereign immunity in the Alaska Tort Claims Act, it is subject to review under the “ordinary principles of negligence.” See Webb v. City and Borough of Sitka, 561 P.2d 731 , 733 & n.9 (Alaska 1977). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Lohnes v. Cloud
green
1 sentence1977That section creates a cause of action in district court for any person of Indian blood who alleges an unlawful denial or exclusion from an allotment. [4] See Lohnes v. Cloud, 366 F. Supp. 619 (D.N.D. 1973); Loncassion v. Leekity, 334 F. Supp. 370 (D.N.M. 1971). [5] Plaintiffs below alleged an additional cause of action based on 28 U.S.C. § 1302 , claiming that the Metlakatla policemen conspired to violate their civil rights. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Thomas v. Broadlands Community Consolidated School District No. 201
green
1 sentence1977First, in a majority of jurisdictions, it is held that procurement of insurance by a governmental unit does not affect the unit's governmental immunity. [63] However, it must also be noted that an increasing number of courts are finding a waiver of immunity, [64] a view which one commentary states "is worthy of characterization as enlightened." [65] In order to analyze the issue at bar, it is necessary to examine the reasons that the courts have given for finding a waiver of immunity. *169 A particularly lucid examination of waiver through insurance coverage is found in Thomas v. Broadlands Co | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Loncassion v. Leekity
green
1 sentence1977That section creates a cause of action in district court for any person of Indian blood who alleges an unlawful denial or exclusion from an allotment. [4] See Lohnes v. Cloud, 366 F. Supp. 619 (D.N.D. 1973); Loncassion v. Leekity, 334 F. Supp. 370 (D.N.M. 1971). [5] Plaintiffs below alleged an additional cause of action based on 28 U.S.C. § 1302 , claiming that the Metlakatla policemen conspired to violate their civil rights. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
State v. I'ANSON
green
2 sentences1977We thus hold that the state’s alleged failures in not providing an overpass, not lowering the speed limit, not posting school warning signs, and not providing additional controlled crossings on College Road, come within the ambit of the discretionary function exception to the waiver of sovereign immunity of AS 09.50.250. 25 We have been called upon to interpret the discretionary function exception on several occasions. 26 In State v. Abbott, 498 P.2d 712 (Alaska 1972), and reaffirmed in State v. I’Anson, 529 P.2d 188 (Alaska 1974), we adopted the planning-operational test in determining whethe 1977We thus hold that the state's alleged failures in not providing an overpass, not lowering the speed limit, not posting school warning signs, and not providing additional controlled crossings on College Road, come within the ambit of the discretionary function exception to the waiver of sovereign immunity of AS 09.50.250. [25] We have been called upon to interpret the discretionary function exception on several occasions. [26] In State v. Abbott, 498 P.2d 712 (Alaska 1972), and reaffirmed in State v. I'Anson, 529 P.2d 188 (Alaska 1974), we adopted the planning-operational test in determining wh | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Puyallup Tribe, Inc. v. Department of Game of Washington
green
2 sentences1977And certainly, the mere fact that the Tribe has appeared on behalf of its individual members does not effect a waiver of sovereign immunity for the Tribe itself. ___ U.S. at ___, 97 S.Ct. at 2621 , 53 L.Ed.2d at 674 . 1977And certainly, the mere fact that the Tribe has appeared on behalf of its individual members does not effect a waiver of sovereign immunity for the Tribe itself. ___ U.S. at ___, 97 S.Ct. at 2621 , 53 L.Ed.2d at 674 . | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Dalehite v. United States
green
2 sentences1972The doctrine of sovereign immunity, which sprang from the ancient maxim that the King can do no wrong, 3 has been strongly criticized in legal literature and variously described as a “medieval doctrine”, 4 “mistaken and unjust” 5 and “an anachronism, without rational basis, [that] has existed only by the force of inertia.” 6 Although the Federal Tort Claims Act of 1946, which provides in part that “[t]he United States shall be liable [in tort] in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances . . .,” 7 was heralded as a comprehensive waiver of governmen 1972The doctrine of sovereign immunity, which sprang from the ancient maxim that the King can do no wrong, 3 has been strongly criticized in legal literature and variously described as a “medieval doctrine”, 4 “mistaken and unjust” 5 and “an anachronism, without rational basis, [that] has existed only by the force of inertia.” 6 Although the Federal Tort Claims Act of 1946, which provides in part that “[t]he United States shall be liable [in tort] in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances . . .,” 7 was heralded as a comprehensive waiver of governmen | 1 | 1972–1972 |
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.