Lawless! wrote:Roupie wrote:Lawless! wrote:ledv wrote:How was the analysis on #2 re QM? Funny thing today: I saw a car with a license plate (black/gold) that said QNMERIT as I was walking into the testing center...
Issue 2 was if B would be successful under QM. I think the 1st case has the elements of QM
Where did fit your ultra vires discussion?
I did ultra virus as a sub issue under issue 1 immunity.
You're the second person on this thread to list it under immunity. Not sure if I messed up or not.
I did ultra vires as a threshold issue for QM.
First case said something like "municipality may be liable for benefits received where it had power to contract in the subject matter, in such a case..."then it went on to list QM factors. I interpreted "power to contract" as a reference to delegated power, which was what ultra vires was about. That ultravires court even referenced the first case.
As for the dissent, it seemed like the dissent was arguing that ultra vires was not a threshold requirement to bRing a QM claim.
not sure how UV fits under the immunity analysis except as a stand alone issue.