N.E.2d at 624), reh’g denied. Finally, Noble County and Carter are distinguishable because the trial rule before the court in Noble County expressly provided that the government shall be responsible for costs and damages if it wrongfully enjoins or restricts a party, but the A.D.R. rules in Carter contain no specific provision for the government to pay sanctions. Accordingly, we hold that, under Noble County, specific provisions in court rules for sanctions against a governmental entity may be enforced, but, where there is no such provision, Carter is controlling and governmental entities are immune from sanctions. We therefore affirm the trial court’s conclusion that the Plan Commission is immune from the imposition of sanctions under the A.D.R. rules. See Carter, 658 N.E.2d at 623 (<HOLDING>). II. The next issue is whether Trust Company
holding that port authority is immune from punitive damages holding that the state is immune from punitive awards holding state immune from suit brought in state court recognizing that municipalities immunity from punitive damage awards under section 1983 does not render them immune from suit altogether holding that a municipality is immune from punitive damages under 42 usc  1983