From my observations and reading case briefs, I have not been able to specifically identify, "that if a local law officer, employee of the state is lack or in dereliction of duties, will the sovereign immunity statute offer protection to the defendant?"
Story: A local sheriff issues to his friend a firearms permit before the three day waiting period has come and gone. Additionally, the friend neglected to inform his friend (the sheriff) that he was presently taking prescribed medications for depression and under psychiatrist care. the friend of the sheriff purchases a hand gun, goes into a local bar, has a verbal confrontation with another individual, the friend pulls out his gun solely with the intentions to scare the victim, the gun fires, hits a bottle located behind the bar, the bottle shatters, a shard of glass hits the man's eye, leading to the injury of total blindness in one eye.
From what I can figure out, yes the sheriff can be held negligent, sort of, only because of the rule of "foreseeability", if his friend would have told him of his medical condition, he could have foreseen the possible end result. But negligence can be proven by the other three elements of Negligence.
Road map please?
Thank you for your time and considerations
In this situation it appears that the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine may apply, due to the fact that the Sheriff did act in dereliction of his duties by providing a firearm permit before the three-day waiting period had come and gone. In addition, the friend would be guilty of gaining the firearms permit under false pretenses, due to the ...
This solution describes key aspects of sovereign immunity for law enforcement officers.
Business law regarding federal sovereign immunity is assessed.
7. (a) Fred Farmer contracts to sell 1000 tons of wheat to the new country of Zorroland. Fred sent the wheat but is never paid. He files suit in U.S. District Court for breach of contract. The defendant country claims that based on the doctrine of sovereign immunity, Fred cannot sue without Zorroland's permission. Is the defendant correct? Why or why not?
(b) Pete sets up a large manufacturing plant in Zorroland, investing several million dollars in its operations. One morning Pete reads in the newspaper that Zorroland has just confiscated all foreign-owned assets within its borders. Knowing that "confiscation" is an illegal taking of property, Pete rushes to Ace Attorney's office to get his attorney to sue Zorroland in U. S Court. Discuss the likely ruling of the court if such lawsuit is filed, discussing the reasons and rules of law for your conclusion.
(c) Cathy orders 50 yards of white silk from Belle's British Finery of London for use in making bridal gowns. The contract provides if a dispute arises, a British court will hear the case and British law will apply. Cathy claims the fabric sent was polyester rather than silk and sues for breach of contract in U.S. federal court. Belle's attorney claims only a British court can hear the case. Is the attorney correct? Why or why not?