The Doctrine of Non-suability of the State in the United StatesJohns Hopkins Press, 1910 - 117 sider |
Inni boken
Resultat 1-5 av 24
Side 11
... considered as acting with reference to the ordinary principles of law . Certain it is that the courts are constantly applying to cases between the state and individuals , with certain modifications , the ordi- nary principles of law ...
... considered as acting with reference to the ordinary principles of law . Certain it is that the courts are constantly applying to cases between the state and individuals , with certain modifications , the ordi- nary principles of law ...
Side 16
... considered that the United States had waived its immunity . The supreme court held contra . 3 See also Carr v . U. S. , 98 U. S. 433 . 2 Dallas 419. Similar cases brought about the same time - Van Stophorst v . Md . , 2 Dall . 401 ...
... considered that the United States had waived its immunity . The supreme court held contra . 3 See also Carr v . U. S. , 98 U. S. 433 . 2 Dallas 419. Similar cases brought about the same time - Van Stophorst v . Md . , 2 Dall . 401 ...
Side 24
... considered as a judgment of the court , for the point decided was that , construing the eleventh amendment ac- cording to its spirit rather than by the letter , a State was relieved from liability to suit at the instance of an indi ...
... considered as a judgment of the court , for the point decided was that , construing the eleventh amendment ac- cording to its spirit rather than by the letter , a State was relieved from liability to suit at the instance of an indi ...
Side 26
... considered that , although " it is inherent in the nature of sovereignty not to be amenable to suit by an indi- vidual without its consent , " " the question as to the suabili- ity of one government by another government rests upon ...
... considered that , although " it is inherent in the nature of sovereignty not to be amenable to suit by an indi- vidual without its consent , " " the question as to the suabili- ity of one government by another government rests upon ...
Side 45
... considered suits against public officers , in relation to the immunity of the state from suit . It was early settled in English law that , although the crown may not be sued for torts done by public officers , the actors themselves may ...
... considered suits against public officers , in relation to the immunity of the state from suit . It was early settled in English law that , although the crown may not be sued for torts done by public officers , the actors themselves may ...
Andre utgaver - Vis alle
The Doctrine of Non-suability of the State in the United States Karl Singewald Uten tilgangsbegrensning - 1910 |
The Doctrine of Non-suability of the State in the United States Karl Singewald Uten tilgangsbegrensning - 1910 |
The Doctrine of Non-suability of the State in the United States Karl Singewald Uten tilgangsbegrensning - 1910 |
Vanlige uttrykk og setninger
50 cents 75 cents agents alleged attorney authority Bank Board of Liquidation bonds brought Chief Justice Marshall Chief Justice Waite Chisholm circuit court citizens claim compel consent constitution contract coupons court held Davis decision decree defendant delivering the opinion dissenting doctrine eleventh amendment enforce enjoin Ex parte Ayers Ex parte Young executive exemption exercise fact federal court form of action fourteenth amendment Georgia grant Greenhow ground of action Gunter H. B. ADAMS Hitchcock immunity individual injunction interest judgment judicial power Jumel jurisdiction Justice Bradley Justice Brewer Justice Gray Justice Harlan Justice Matthews Justice Miller Justice Peckham land liability lien Louisiana mandamus Maryland McComb non-suability North Carolina Osborn plaintiff Poindexter principle proceedings public officers question railroad company rates real ground relief remedy restrain right of action Schwalby sovereign sued suits against public supreme court tion tort treasury uncon violation Virginia XI-XII
Populære avsnitt
Side 107 - Whoever, by virtue of public position under a State government, deprives another of property, life, or liberty, without due process of law, or denies or takes away the equal protection of the laws, violates the constitutional inhibition; and as he acts in the name and for the State, and is clothed with the State's power, his act is that of the State. This must be so, or the constitutional prohibition has no meaning.
Side 120 - CARTER ADAMS. 50 cents. VII. Institutional Beginnings in a Western State. By JESSE MACY. 25 cents. VIII-IX, Indian Money in New England, etc. By WILLIAM B.
Side 18 - The suability of a State without its consent was a thing unknown to the law. This has been so often laid down and acknowledged by courts and jurists that it is hardly necessary to be formally asserted.
Side 67 - But it has been well settled that when a plain official duty, requiring no exercise of discretion, is to be performed, and performance is refused, any person who will sustain personal injury by such refusal may have a mandamus to compel its performance...
Side 77 - The other class is where a suit is brought against defendants who, claiming to act as officers of the state, and under the color of an unconstitutional statute, commit acts of wrong and injury to the rights and property of the plaintiff acquired under a contract with the state.
Side 60 - ... it certainly can never be alleged that a mere suggestion of title in a state to property, in possession of an individual, must arrest the proceedings of the court, and prevent ^ their * looking into the suggestion, and examining the validity of the title.
Side 92 - This, as a general rule, is true. But there are exceptions. When such indictment or proceeding is brought to enforce an alleged unconstitutional statute, which Is the subject-matter of inquiry in a suit already pending in a federal court, the latter court, having first obtained Jurisdiction over the subjectmatter, has the right, In both civil and criminal cases, to hold and maintain such jurisdiction, to the exclusion of all other courts, until its duty Is fully performed.
Side 13 - To implead an independent sovereign in such a way is to call upon him to sacrifice either his property or his independence. To place him in that position is a breach of the principle upon which his immunity from jurisdiction rests. We think that he cannot be so indirectly impleaded any more than he could be directly impleaded. The case is, upon this consideration of it, brought within the general rule that a sovereign authority cannot be personally impleaded in any court.