State v. Van Zant

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining “[o]fficial immunity is considered a distinct doctrine [from sovereign immunity] that shields State officials and employees themselves” and is “a derivative or extension of the doctrine of sovereign immunity”
• applying “official immunity” in lieu of “sovereign immunity” where the defendants were not “mere nominal defendants,” but were being sued “for their personal and individual acts of negligence” while acting within the scope of their employment as state employees
• indemnification of individual state officials does not protect independence in judgment and discretion because individuals still would fear retribution from government that would have to pay the judgment
• “Sovereign immunity itself has been rejected by some members of this court, and whatever future the doctrine may have depends on the merits of the legislative response to the widespread dissatisfaction with it.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).