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.
5 California opinions name it 1 courts 2001–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hall v. City of Taftgreen2 sentences2001(Hall v. City of Taft (1956) 47 Cal.2d 177, 183 [ 302 P.2d 574 ]; Laidlaw, supra, 43 Cal.App.4th at p. 638 .) “State agencies . . . enjoy immunity from local regulation unless the state, through statute or provision of the California Constitution, has consented to waive such immunity. [Citation.] . . . ‘Because the “state’s immunity from local regulations is merely an extension of the concept of sovereign immunity” [citation], the consent to waive the immunity must be stated in “express words” [citation] in a statute [citation].’ [Citation.]” (Laidlaw, supra, 43 Cal.App.4th at p. 635 .) The is 2001(Hall v. City of Taft (1956) 47 Cal.2d 177, 183 [ 302 P.2d 574 ]; Laidlaw, supra, 43 Cal.App.4th at p. 638 .) “State agencies . . . enjoy immunity from local regulation unless the state, through statute or provision of the California Constitution, has consented to waive such immunity. [Citation.] . . . ‘Because the “state’s immunity from local regulations is merely an extension of the concept of sovereign immunity” [citation], the consent to waive the immunity must be stated in “express words” [citation] in a statute [citation].’ [Citation.]” (Laidlaw, supra, 43 Cal.App.4th at p. 635 .) The is | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. v. Bay Cities Services, Inc.
green
2 sentences2001(Hall v. City of Taft (1956) 47 Cal.2d 177, 183 [ 302 P.2d 574 ]; Laidlaw, supra, 43 Cal.App.4th at p. 638 .) “State agencies . . . enjoy immunity from local regulation unless the state, through statute or provision of the California Constitution, has consented to waive such immunity. [Citation.] . . . ‘Because the “state’s immunity from local regulations is merely an extension of the concept of sovereign immunity” [citation], the consent to waive the immunity must be stated in “express words” [citation] in a statute [citation].’ [Citation.]” (Laidlaw, supra, 43 Cal.App.4th at p. 635 .) The is 2001(Hall v. City of Taft (1956) 47 Cal.2d 177, 183 [ 302 P.2d 574 ]; Laidlaw, supra, 43 Cal.App.4th at p. 638 .) “State agencies . . . enjoy immunity from local regulation unless the state, through statute or provision of the California Constitution, has consented to waive such immunity. [Citation.] . . . ‘Because the “state’s immunity from local regulations is merely an extension of the concept of sovereign immunity” [citation], the consent to waive the immunity must be stated in “express words” [citation] in a statute [citation].’ [Citation.]” (Laidlaw, supra, 43 Cal.App.4th at p. 635 .) The is | 3 | 2001–2020 |
Gates v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2020(Gates v. Superior Court (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 481, 509-510 .) Rather, this is an issue of sovereign immunity to municipal regulation. 2020(Gates v. Superior Court (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 481, 509-510 .) Rather, this is an issue of sovereign immunity to municipal regulation. | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Taylor v. John Crane, Inc.
green
1 sentence2010Indeed, the cases make clear the government is immune from claims based on such conduct even if it has been negligent.” (Id. at p. 1071.) The court therefore affirmed the allocation of fault to the Navy. 6 ( 113 Cal.App.4th at p. 1071 .) Plaintiffs argue Taylor is inapposite, pointing out “the words ‘sovereign immunity’ appear nowhere in the opinion.” They contend Taylor “overlooked the fact that by default the Navy ‘is not a tortfeasor,’ ” because “[d]ue to the parties’ framing of the issues on appeal, the court in Taylor was not asked to consider, and therefore did not consider, the issue of | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Sokaogon Gaming Enterprise Corporation and Sokaogon Chippewa Community v. Tushie-Montgomery Associates, Incorporated
green
1 sentence2002On the issue of sovereign immunity, it followed a line of authority represented by Sokaogon Gaming Enterp. v. TushieMontgomery Assoc. (7th Cir. 1996) 86 F.3d 656 , which held that similar contract language agreeing to arbitration, and enforcement in any court of competent jurisdiction, is an explicit waiver of sovereign immunity. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.