The Doctrine of Non-suability of the State in the United States

Forside
Johns Hopkins Press, 1910 - 117 sider
0 Anmeldelser
Anmeldelsene blir ikke bekreftet, men Google ser etter falskt innhold og fjerner slikt innhold som avdekkes

Inni boken

Hva folk mener - Skriv en omtale

Vi har ikke funnet noen omtaler på noen av de vanlige stedene.

Utvalgte sider

Andre utgaver - Vis alle

Vanlige uttrykk og setninger

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.

Bibliografisk informasjon