Issue: WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S COMMON LAW CLAIM MAY BE BARRED BY THE DOCTRINE OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY.
| Area of Law: | Government Claims, Litigation & Procedure |
| Keywords: | Sovereign immunity; Common law claim barred; Suit against the State |
| Jurisdiction: | Connecticut |
| Cited Cases: | 184 Conn. 339; 644 A.2d 360; 34 Conn. App. 816; 439 A.2d 1033; 172 Conn. 615 |
| Cited Statutes: | None |
| Date: | 01/01/2001 |
Under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the State may not be sued without its consent. Horton v. Meskill, 172 Conn. 615, 623, 376 A.2d 359, 363 (1977). However, the doctrine is not absolute; rather, it is subject to multiple exceptions, most notably when the State commits acts that are unconstitutional, or that exceed or constitute an erroneous exercise of its legal authority. Pamela B. v. Ment, 244 Conn. at 328, 709 A.2d at 1106; Horton v. Meskill, 172 Conn. at 624, 376 A.2d at 364; Herzig v. Horrigan, 34 Conn. App. 816, 819, 644 A.2d 360, 362 (1994). Because a state can act only through its officers and agents, a suit against a state officer concerning an official action is effectively a suit against the state. Sentner v. Board of Trustees of Regional Community Colleges, 184 Conn. 339, 342, 439 A.2d 1033, 1035 (1981); Horton v. Meskill, 172 Conn. at 623, 376 A.2d at 363. Therefore, not only does the doctrine of sovereign immunity apply to officers and agents of the state acting within their official roles, but so do all exceptions to it. See id.
Sovereign immunity rests on the principle that subjecting a state government to private litigation might seriously interfere with the performance of its functions, and its control over its instrumentalities, funds, and property. Horton v. Meskill, 172 Conn. at 624, 376 A.2d at 363-64. However, when it is alleged that a state official […]