Cited by

¶ 16 (2003) (); ¶ 43 (2020)

to hold “that if a plaintiff could not have asserted a claim for a particular type of harm against a particular defendant in 1912, then the anti-abrogation clause provides that claim no protection.” Id.

because dram shop liability claims did not exist at common law in 1912.

¶ 7 (2003) (quoting Suggested State Legislation on Public Recreation on Private Lands, 24 Council of St.

In Lerner v. DMB Realty, LLC, we stated that “to be protected by the anti- abrogation clause, a cause of action must have existed at common law or have found its basis in the common law at the time the constitution was adopted.” ¶ 36, ( ¶ 9, ) (internal quotation marks omitted).

In general, to be protected by the anti-abrogation clause, a cause of action “must have existed at common law or have found its basis in the common law at the time the constitution was adopted.” ¶ 9

3 n. 3, ¶ 9, , 46 n. 3 (2003) ( , ( , 189 P. 631, 632 (1920), for the proposition that "it is well settled by the great weight of authority that the state, in consequence of its soverei

¶9 As Andresano correctly notes, P.3d 44 (2003).

2 n. 2, , 45 n. 2 (2003) (citing Orme Sch.