sovereign immunity by undue interference doctrine (Connecticut) · Go Syfert
← Connecticut issues

sovereign immunity by undue interference doctrine in Connecticut

10 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1983–2010 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Connecticut 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.

Followed or applied (0)

CaseFollowedCited
No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut.

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (11)

CaseCitedYears
Pamela B. v. Ment green
conn · 1998
2 sentences

2010In support of his claim on cross appeal, the plaintiff cites this court’s statement in Bloom v. Gershon, 271 Conn. 96, 107 , 856 A.2d 335 (2004), that “the state cannot use sovereign immunity as a defense in an action for declaratory or injunctive relief.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) See also Pamela B. v. Ment, 244 Conn. 296, 328 , 709 A.2d 1089 (1998) (“[t]he state is subject to suit without consent ... in a suit for injunctive relief when the action does not defeat the purpose of the doctrine of sovereign immunity by undue interference with governmental functions” [internal quotation

2010In support of his claim on cross appeal, the plaintiff cites this court’s statement in Bloom v. Gershon, 271 Conn. 96, 107 , 856 A.2d 335 (2004), that “the state cannot use sovereign immunity as a defense in an action for declaratory or injunctive relief.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) See also Pamela B. v. Ment, 244 Conn. 296, 328 , 709 A.2d 1089 (1998) (“[t]he state is subject to suit without consent ... in a suit for injunctive relief when the action does not defeat the purpose of the doctrine of sovereign immunity by undue interference with governmental functions” [internal quotation

71998–2010
Sentner v. Board of Trustees of Regional Community Colleges green
conn · 1981
2 sentences

1994In Sentner v. Board of Trustees, 184 Conn. 339 , 345 , 439 A.2d 1033 (1981), the court held that a state is subject to suit without consent in an action for injunctive relief when the action does not defeat the purpose of the doctrine of sovereign immunity by undue interference with governmental functions.

1994In Sentner v. Board of Trustees, 184 Conn. 339 , 345 , 439 A.2d 1033 (1981), the court held that a state is subject to suit without consent in an action for injunctive relief when the action does not defeat the purpose of the doctrine of sovereign immunity by undue interference with governmental functions.

41983–2001
Duguay v. Hopkins green
conn · 1983
2 sentences

2000Therefore, "[t]he state is subject to suit without consent . . . in a suit for injunctive relief when the action does not defeat the purpose of the doctrine of sovereign immunity by undue interference with governmental functions." Duguay v. Hopkins, 191 Conn. 222 , 227 n. 4.

1998Therefore, “[t]he state is subject to suit without consent ... in a suit for injunctive relief when the action does not defeat the purpose of the doctrine of sovereign immunity by undue interference with governmental functions.” Duguay v. Hopkins, 191 Conn. 222 , 227 n.4, 464 A.2d 45 (1983).

31998–2001
Unisys Corp. v. Department of Labor green
conn · 1991
2 sentences

2001Duguay v. Hopkins, 191 Conn. 222 , 227 n. 4; Pamela B. v. Ment, 244 Conn. 296 (1998); cf. also, Unisys Corp. v. Departmental of Labor, 220 Conn. 689 (1991); Sentner v. Board of Trustees, 184 Conn. 339 (1981).

2000Pamela B. v. Ment, 244 Conn. 296 (1998); cf. also, Unisys Corp. v. Department of Labor, 220 Conn. 689 (1991); Sentner v. Board of Trustees, 184 Conn. 339 (1981).

22000–2001
Krozser v. City of New Haven green
conn · 1989
2 sentences

2010In support of his claim on cross appeal, the plaintiff cites this court’s statement in Bloom v. Gershon, 271 Conn. 96, 107 , 856 A.2d 335 (2004), that “the state cannot use sovereign immunity as a defense in an action for declaratory or injunctive relief.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) See also Pamela B. v. Ment, 244 Conn. 296, 328 , 709 A.2d 1089 (1998) (“[t]he state is subject to suit without consent ... in a suit for injunctive relief when the action does not defeat the purpose of the doctrine of sovereign immunity by undue interference with governmental functions” [internal quotation

2010In support of his claim on cross appeal, the plaintiff cites this court’s statement in Bloom v. Gershon, 271 Conn. 96, 107 , 856 A.2d 335 (2004), that “the state cannot use sovereign immunity as a defense in an action for declaratory or injunctive relief.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) See also Pamela B. v. Ment, 244 Conn. 296, 328 , 709 A.2d 1089 (1998) (“[t]he state is subject to suit without consent ... in a suit for injunctive relief when the action does not defeat the purpose of the doctrine of sovereign immunity by undue interference with governmental functions” [internal quotation

12010–2010
Bloom v. Gershon green
conn · 2004
2 sentences

2010In support of his claim on cross appeal, the plaintiff cites this court’s statement in Bloom v. Gershon, 271 Conn. 96, 107 , 856 A.2d 335 (2004), that “the state cannot use sovereign immunity as a defense in an action for declaratory or injunctive relief.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) See also Pamela B. v. Ment, 244 Conn. 296, 328 , 709 A.2d 1089 (1998) (“[t]he state is subject to suit without consent ... in a suit for injunctive relief when the action does not defeat the purpose of the doctrine of sovereign immunity by undue interference with governmental functions” [internal quotation

2010In support of his claim on cross appeal, the plaintiff cites this court’s statement in Bloom v. Gershon, 271 Conn. 96, 107 , 856 A.2d 335 (2004), that “the state cannot use sovereign immunity as a defense in an action for declaratory or injunctive relief.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) See also Pamela B. v. Ment, 244 Conn. 296, 328 , 709 A.2d 1089 (1998) (“[t]he state is subject to suit without consent ... in a suit for injunctive relief when the action does not defeat the purpose of the doctrine of sovereign immunity by undue interference with governmental functions” [internal quotation

12010–2010
Krozser v. Connecticut green
scotus · 1990
2 sentences

2010In addition, the state cannot use sovereign immunity as a defense in an action for declaratory or injunctive relief.” [Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.]), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1036 , 110 S. Ct. 757 , 107 L.

2010In addition, the state cannot use sovereign immunity as a defense in an action for declaratory or injunctive relief.” [Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.]), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1036 , 110 S. Ct. 757 , 107 L.

12010–2010
Price v. Viking Penguin, Inc. green
scotus · 1990
2 sentences

2010In addition, the state cannot use sovereign immunity as a defense in an action for declaratory or injunctive relief.” [Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.]), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1036 , 110 S. Ct. 757 , 107 L.

2010In addition, the state cannot use sovereign immunity as a defense in an action for declaratory or injunctive relief." [Citations *124 omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.]), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1036 , 110 S.Ct. 757 , 107 L.Ed.2d 774 (1990).

12010–2010
Herzig v. Horrigan green
connappct · 1994
2 sentences

2002In asserting its claim of sovereign immunity, the state relies predominantly on Herzig v. Horrigan, 34 Conn. App. 816 , 644 A.2d 360 (1994).

2002In asserting its claim of sovereign immunity, the state relies predominantly on Herzig v. Horrigan, 34 Conn. App. 816 , 644 A.2d 360 (1994).

12002–2002
State v. Doscher green
conn · 1977
1 sentence

1983Stat., the Claims Commissioner does not have authority to hear and determine this claim as it is a claim ‘upon which suit otherwise is authorized by law.’ ” The state defendants admit in footnote 4 of their brief that this claim was not dismissed by the claims commissioner and is still pending before him. 4 The state is subject to suit without consent in an action for declaratory judgment where the defendant state officer is allegedly proceeding under an unconstitutional statute or in excess of his statutory authority; Horton v. Meskill, 172 Conn. 615, 624 , 376 A.2d 359 (1977); and in a suit

11983–1983
Horton v. Meskill green
conn · 1977
1 sentence

1983Stat., the Claims Commissioner does not have authority to hear and determine this claim as it is a claim ‘upon which suit otherwise is authorized by law.’ ” The state defendants admit in footnote 4 of their brief that this claim was not dismissed by the claims commissioner and is still pending before him. 4 The state is subject to suit without consent in an action for declaratory judgment where the defendant state officer is allegedly proceeding under an unconstitutional statute or in excess of his statutory authority; Horton v. Meskill, 172 Conn. 615, 624 , 376 A.2d 359 (1977); and in a suit

11983–1983

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check