Maryland
How Cross v. State of Michigan applies in Maryland: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Contracts.
Maryland follows the principles established in Cross v. State of Michigan regarding sovereign immunity, emphasizing that the state cannot be sued for breach of contract unless consent is given. The Maryland Court of Appeals has recognized limitations on state liability that can impact contractual agreements with government entities.
In Maryland, the doctrine of sovereign immunity prevents the state from being held liable for contractual breaches unless expressly waived by statute or contractual agreement.
The Maryland Court of Appeals reiterated that the state enjoys sovereign immunity and cannot be liable for breaches of contract unless there is a clear statutory waiver.
This case affirmed the principle that contractual claims against the state require a prior waiver of immunity.
The ruling highlighted that contracts entered into by state agencies must comply with statutory provisions that outline the state's liability.
Unlike the more flexible federal approach to sovereign immunity, where exceptions exist under the Federal Tort Claims Act, Maryland's sovereign immunity doctrine is more rigid, requiring explicit permission for lawsuits. This distinction is significant for contract claims involving state entities.
Understanding sovereign immunity in the context of contracts is crucial for the Maryland bar exam, as it frequently tests candidates on the state's unique limitations on liability.