finding that a lower court’s rejecting a defense of sovereign immunity is not appealable under the collateral order doctrine and further clarifying that any denial of an interlocutory appeal would not impact the tort claim act’s goal of limiting litigation costs because to do so would require an assumption that the act applied to this case—a factual issue yet to be determined
How later courts described this case
- finding that a lower court’s rejecting a defense of sovereign immunity is not appealable under the collateral order doctrine and further clarifying that any denial of an interlocutory appeal would not impact the tort claim act’s goal of limiting litigation costs because to do so would require an assumption that the act applied to this case—a factual issue yet to be determined
- test under the Tort Claims Act is “respondeat superior liability ... under agency law”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ELDRIDGE, Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the result. See Bunting v. State, 312 Md. 472, 482 , 540 A.2d 805, 809 (1988) (concurring opinion).