Legal Opinion · Dissent

Turnbull v. Fink

Supreme Court of Delaware

Decided October 26, 1995No. 79, 1994Published

1Dissent

HOLLAND, Justice,

dissenting, with whom BERGER, J., joins:

The interlocutory judgments of the Superi- or Court which determined that 2 Del.C. § 1329, rather than 18 Del.C. § 6511, applies to these proceedings and limits any recovery to $300,000 per occurrence should be reversed because § 1329 is unconstitutional. The operative statutes are 18 Del.C. § 6511 and 2 Del. C. § 1309(20). The General Assembly’s statutory authorization and funding of the commercial liability insurance policies, which are applicable to the claims in this case, constituted acts that waived the State’s sovereign immunity…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Brown v. FirestoneSupreme Court of Florida · 1980
  2. Doe Ex Rel. Doe v. CatesSupreme Court of Delaware · 1985
  3. Department of Educ. v. LewisSupreme Court of Florida · 1982
  4. Shellhorn & Hill, Inc. v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 1962
  5. Opinion of the Justices of the Supreme CourtSupreme Court of Delaware · 1962

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API