Carlson v. Highter, Civ. 3-85-68.
| Decision Date | 21 May 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. Civ. 3-85-68.,Civ. 3-85-68. |
| Citation | 612 F. Supp. 603 |
| Parties | Frederick M. CARLSON, Plaintiff, v. William H. HIGHTER and University of Tennessee, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee |
Michael C. Crowe, Canton, N.Y., Jerrold L. Becker, Knoxville, Tenn., for plaintiff.
Beauchamp E. Brogan, Alan M. Parker and Catherine S. Mizell, Knoxville, Tenn., for defendants.
This is a cause of action for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty by defendant William H. Highter, an employee of the defendant University of Tennessee, and for tortious interference with contractual relations by defendant University of Tennessee. Jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The case is before the Court on the University of Tennessee's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
The complaint alleges that plaintiff and defendant Highter while employed by Clarkson College entered into a joint venture to submit a joint proposal to the United States Air Force as co-principal investigators for a research grant. The complaint alleges that the grant was awarded to plaintiff and defendant Highter in July 1980, and that both performed and were compensated as co-principal investigators from July 1980 through December 1981. The complaint further alleges that on or about March 16, 1982, defendant Highter, then employed by the University of Tennessee, withdrew the previously submitted joint proposal without plaintiff's knowledge or consent and submitted a new proposal for the same research grant, which grant was awarded to the University of Tennessee, and defendant Highter was named as sole principal investigator. The complaint alleges that the University of Tennessee wrongfully, maliciously and intentionally induced defendant Highter to commit the acts allegedly constituting a breach of Highter's contractual relationship with plaintiff.
The University of Tennessee moves to dismiss the Complaint on the grounds that the suit is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. University of Tennessee says that it is an agency of the State of Tennessee, and as such is immune from suit except to the extent that it has consented to suit. University of Tennessee says that it has consented to suit only in the circuit and chancery courts of Davidson County, Tennessee. Finally, the University of Tennessee says that plaintiff's claim sounds in tort and is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
University of Tennessee v. US Fidelity & Guar. Co.
...situation, UT is an agency of the State and is immune from suit except to the extent it has consented to be sued. See Carlson v. Highter, 612 F.Supp. 603 (D.C.Tenn.1985). In making that determination, the Court examined only Tennessee case law and the Tennessee statutory scheme. See id. at ......
-
Stefanovic v. University of Tennessee
...alter ego of the State of Tennessee and is therefore entitled to the State's Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit. Carlson v. Highter, 612 F.Supp. 603 (E.D.Tenn.1985); cf. University of Tennessee v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Company, 670 F.Supp. 1379 (E.D.Tenn.1987) (UT was arm or alter ego......
-
Boyd v. Tennessee State University
...is an agency of the state and therefore is immune from suit except to the extent it has consented to be sued." Carlson v. Highter, 612 F.Supp. 603, 604-05 (E.D.Tenn.1985) (citing University of Tennessee v. Peoples Bank, 6 S.W.2d 328 (1928)). Furthermore, Tennessee courts have repeatedly hel......
-
Mirabella v. University of Tennessee
...is entitled to the state's Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit. UT v. USF & G, 670 F.Supp. 1379 (E.D.Tenn.1987); Carlson v. Highter, 612 F.Supp. 603 (E.D.Tenn.1985). Other judges in this district have ruled likewise. See Kersavage v. UT, 731 F.Supp. 1327 (E.D.Tenn.1989) (Judge Jordan); Fi......