The Doctrine of Non-suability of the State in the United StatesJohns Hopkins Press, 1910 - 117 sider |
Inni boken
Resultat 1-5 av 16
Side 22
... dissenting opinion , concurred in by three other justices , Justice Bradley expressly took the ground that , although the eleventh amendment does not apply to suits against a State by its own citizens , it would be absurd to maintain ...
... dissenting opinion , concurred in by three other justices , Justice Bradley expressly took the ground that , although the eleventh amendment does not apply to suits against a State by its own citizens , it would be absurd to maintain ...
Side 23
... dissenting , held , and Chief Justice Marshall noticed the objection without ruling upon it , that the eleventh amendment applies only to suits in law and equity , and that the immunity of a State does not extend to suits in admiralty ...
... dissenting , held , and Chief Justice Marshall noticed the objection without ruling upon it , that the eleventh amendment applies only to suits in law and equity , and that the immunity of a State does not extend to suits in admiralty ...
Side 24
... dissenting opinion in Chisholm v . Georgia ; but such expression can- not be 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 ...
... dissenting opinion in Chisholm v . Georgia ; but such expression can- not be 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 ...
Side 25
... dissenting , held that the United States could not sue a State ; that " the constitution did not enlarge the liability of States to suits , but only provided tribunals to which suits might be brought to which they were already subject ...
... dissenting , held that the United States could not sue a State ; that " the constitution did not enlarge the liability of States to suits , but only provided tribunals to which suits might be brought to which they were already subject ...
Side 28
... such suits certainly opens the way , at least , as in the case in hand , to evasions of the eleventh 192 U. S. 286 . amendment . Justice White , in the able dissenting opinion 28 [ 362 The Non - Suability of the State .
... such suits certainly opens the way , at least , as in the case in hand , to evasions of the eleventh 192 U. S. 286 . amendment . Justice White , in the able dissenting opinion 28 [ 362 The Non - Suability of the State .
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.