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.
10 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 51 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Currie v. Lao.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Currie v. Lao Anchor | green | “the determination of whether an action is in fact a suit against the state turns upon an analysis of the issues involved and the relief sought, rather than the formal designation of the parties.” | 11 |
| 2 | Healy v. Vaupel | green | “against making the state of illinois a party to a suit cannot be evaded by making an action nominally one against the servants or agents of the state when the real claim is against the state of illinois itself and when the state of illinois is the party vitally interested.” | 8 |
| 3 | Currie v. Lao | green | “an action brought nominally against a state employee in his individual capacity will be found to be a claim against the state where a judgment for the plaintiff could operate to control the actions of the state or subject it to liability.” | 7 |
| 4 | Healy v. Vaupel | green | “as working an improper severance of the relationship between master and servant,” | 5 |
| 5 | Healy v. Vaupel | green | “affords no protection, however, when it is alleged that the state's agent acted in violation of statutory or constitutional law or in excess of his authority, and in those instances an action may be brought in circuit court.” | 4 |
| 6 | Currie v. Lao | green | “judgment for the plaintiff could operate to control the actions of the state or subject it to liability.” | 4 |
| 7 | Welch v. Illinois Supreme Court | green | “because sovereign immunity presupposes the possibility of a legal wrong by a state employee , and legal wrongs are, per se, unauthorized, the relevant question cannot be whether the employee had authority to commit the legal wrong.” | 3 |
| 8 | Carmody v. Thompson | green | “a judgment for the plaintiff could also directly influence how persons in positions similar to defendant's position handle personnel matters in the future.” | 3 |
| 9 | Shirley v. Harmon | green | “because sovereign immunity presupposes the possibility of a legal wrong by a state employee , and legal wrongs are, per se, unauthorized, the relevant question cannot be whether the employee had authority to commit the legal wrong.” | 3 |
| 10 | Shirley v. Harmon | green | “even assuming plaintiff correctly alleges defendant police officer's acts violate the statute and regulations pertaining to the use of oscillating lights and sirens, defendant can act negligently or wilfully and wantonly without exceeding the scope of his authority” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.