Comments on: Liable For Liability http://firegeezer.com/2008/06/17/liable-for-liability/ Hottest Fire Blog On The Web Mon, 01 Dec 2008 21:18:36 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.2 By: Dal90 http://firegeezer.com/2008/06/17/liable-for-liability/#comment-18498 Dal90 Fri, 20 Jun 2008 15:14:27 +0000 http://firegeezer.com/2008/06/17/liable-for-liability/#comment-18498 The A&M link definitely has interesting wording in Justice Vance's dissent that was quoted that "it denied the officials protection of sovereign immunity." That's what is weird -- even a first year law clerk one would hope wouldn't get the terms confused. This is from the Texas AG's office, after it discussed the state itself having sovereign immunity: --- Government employees enjoy certain protections from personal liability in lawsuits. One type of protection is the doctrine of official immunity. Government employees are entitled to immunity from suits that arise from (1) the performance of their discretionary duties (2) in good faith as long as they are acting (3) within the scope of their authority.(211) http://www.oag.state.tx.us/AG_Publications/txts/2002adminlaw5.shtml --- And reading your link, that seems to be the crux of the matter -- whether the administrators were working in an official capacity (discretionary duties) or on a personal basis. The concepts remain the same, I'm just not sure the words are quite the right ones. The A&M link definitely has interesting wording in Justice Vance’s dissent that was quoted that “it denied the officials protection of sovereign immunity.” That’s what is weird — even a first year law clerk one would hope wouldn’t get the terms confused.

This is from the Texas AG’s office, after it discussed the state itself having sovereign immunity:

—
Government employees enjoy certain protections from personal liability in lawsuits. One type of protection is the doctrine of official immunity. Government employees are entitled to immunity from suits that arise from (1) the performance of their discretionary duties (2) in good faith as long as they are acting (3) within the scope of their authority.(211)
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/AG_Publications/txts/2002adminlaw5.shtml
—

And reading your link, that seems to be the crux of the matter — whether the administrators were working in an official capacity (discretionary duties) or on a personal basis.

The concepts remain the same, I’m just not sure the words are quite the right ones.

]]> By: Mike "fossilmedic" Ward http://firegeezer.com/2008/06/17/liable-for-liability/#comment-18465 Mike "fossilmedic" Ward Thu, 19 Jun 2008 20:29:32 +0000 http://firegeezer.com/2008/06/17/liable-for-liability/#comment-18465 In the Texas A&M case the courts ruled that the university was protected but the individual administrators were not. This link takes you to a discussion thread that includes the Chronicles of Higher Education article. http://www.guboards.spokesmanreview.com/showthread.php?t=12752 My understanding is that cities and counties in many states enjoy the same protection as the state. In the Texas A&M case the courts ruled that the university was protected but the individual administrators were not.

This link takes you to a discussion thread that includes the Chronicles of Higher Education article.

http://www.guboards.spokesmanreview.com/showthread.php?t=12752

My understanding is that cities and counties in many states enjoy the same protection as the state.

]]> By: Dal90 http://firegeezer.com/2008/06/17/liable-for-liability/#comment-18449 Dal90 Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:24:05 +0000 http://firegeezer.com/2008/06/17/liable-for-liability/#comment-18449 I'm pretty certain the concept that's involved is "Qualified Immunity." That is what generally shields public officials from being individually sued. Sovereign Immunity can only be claimed by the Federal & State governments. It does not extend to political subdivisions of states. Under Sovereign Immunity the State of Washington must consent to be sued; the City of Seattle would enjoy no such discretion. I'm not sure if Texas A&M is considered a State Agency or not to fall under the doctrine. I’m pretty certain the concept that’s involved is “Qualified Immunity.” That is what generally shields public officials from being individually sued.

Sovereign Immunity can only be claimed by the Federal & State governments. It does not extend to political subdivisions of states. Under Sovereign Immunity the State of Washington must consent to be sued; the City of Seattle would enjoy no such discretion.

I’m not sure if Texas A&M is considered a State Agency or not to fall under the doctrine.

]]>