In Dep't of Envt'l Prot. v. ContractPoint, the Florida Supreme Court held that where an agency is found to have breached a contract, it may not hide behind a statutory provision requiring legislative authorization to pay the judgment.
As the Court handles it, this is a legislative interpretation question involving conflicting statutory intents (the dissent disagrees).
This is very important to anyone who contracts with state agencies (including, perhaps, development-type agreements, easement agreements and negotiated sales) and should be read by all.
I'm also guessing that this will result in a bunch of cases where folks try to find ways to frame cases as being based in contract rather than tort.