The Doctrine of Non-suability of the State in the United StatesJohns Hopkins Press, 1910 - 117 sider |
Inni boken
Resultat 1-5 av 23
Side i
... decided by the supreme court of the United States , both because of the greater importance of those cases , and because the supreme court is the only tribunal before which has come any con- siderable number or variety of suits of this ...
... decided by the supreme court of the United States , both because of the greater importance of those cases , and because the supreme court is the only tribunal before which has come any con- siderable number or variety of suits of this ...
Side 22
... decided . " That the principle of immunity applied to the States , he seems not to have doubted ; and the eleventh amendment he regarded as having established a rule of construction for one clause that ought to be applied also to other ...
... decided . " That the principle of immunity applied to the States , he seems not to have doubted ; and the eleventh amendment he regarded as having established a rule of construction for one clause that ought to be applied also to other ...
Side 24
... 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- vidual , whether one of its own citizens or a citizen of ...
... 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- vidual , whether one of its own citizens or a citizen of ...
Side 25
... decided a case brought by the United States against North Carolina , the State making no objection . In United States v . Texas , " objection was made , and the question came squarely before the court for decision . Juris- 1 190 U. S. ...
... decided a case brought by the United States against North Carolina , the State making no objection . In United States v . Texas , " objection was made , and the question came squarely before the court for decision . Juris- 1 190 U. S. ...
Side 28
... decided , not upon the particular nature of the title of the bonds and coupons asserted by the States , since it was conceded that , but for the constitution , a title such as that propounded would have given rise to an adequate cause ...
... decided , not upon the particular nature of the title of the bonds and coupons asserted by the States , since it was conceded that , but for the constitution , a title such as that propounded would have given rise to an adequate cause ...
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 execution 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 118 - 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.