CONTRACTS--COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES--SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY--WAIVER--SCOPE--BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANTS OR CONDITIONS--CLOSURE OF ON-CAMPUS FACILITIES AND SUSPENSION OF ON-CAMPUS SERVICES BY STATE UNIVERSITY DURING COVID-19 PANDEMIC. In Pan-Am Tobacco Corporation v. Department of Corrections, the Court recognized that sovereign immunity may be waived regarding breach of contract claims against government entities, but only if there is an express written contract entered under statutory authorization. The Court held that for written contracts entered by government entities, sovereign immunity does not bar claims for breach of implied covenants and conditions that do not contradict, supplant, or override express contract provisions. The Court's opinion included a brief summary of salient features of the statutory provisions that provided the backdrop of the controversy presented by the case and an analysis of Pan-Am and its progeny.
VIEW OPINION

MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE--JURISDICTION--WAIVER. A trial court lost jurisdiction over a mortgage foreclosure case when it entered a final judgment denying foreclosure and, accordingly, the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the plaintiff's amended complaint. However, the failure to timely object to the court's exercise of jurisdiction resulted in waiver of the issue. The Court noted the distinction between case jurisdiction, which is waivable, and subject matter jurisdiction, which is nonwaivable because it concerns a court's constitutional or statutory authority to hear a certain type of case.
VIEW OPINION

LEGISLATION--CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS--FAIR DISTRICTS AMENDMENT--RACIAL MINORITIES--DIMINISHMENT. Pursuant to existing precedent, the Court found that Congressional District 5 was a protected ability-to-elect district for black voters and that a newly enacted redistricting plan diminished that ability to elect. However, because the Legislature's obligation to comply with the federal Equal Protection Clause is superior to its obligation to comply with the Non-Diminishment Clause as interpreted by the supreme court, plaintiffs were required to prove the possibility of drawing a district that is both non-diminishing and non-race-predominant in order to establish the invalidity of the enacted plan. The Legislature's "obligation to comply with the Non-Diminishment Clause does not of its own force give the legislature a compelling interest in drawing a race-predominant district." Because plaintiffs failed to prove that their proposed remedial district is not race-predominant, they did not meet their burden to prove the invalidity of the enacted plan.
VIEW OPINION