The Doctrine of Non-suability of the State in the United States ... |
Hva folk mener - Skriv en omtale
Vi har ikke funnet noen omtaler på noen av de vanlige stedene.
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
action adopted agents alleged appears apply attorney authority Bank bill bonds bring brought certainly Chief Justice Marshall circuit court citizens claim clearly collection compel consent considered constitution contract course Davis decided decision decree defendants denied determined direct dissenting doctrine duty effect eleventh amendment enforce enjoin equitable execution exemption exercise exist extend fact federal court funds Georgia grant Gray ground hand held hold immunity individual injunction interest involved issue judgment judicial jurisdiction Justice Harlan land liability limited Louisiana maintained mandamus Michigan nature objection opinion Osborn party performance plaintiff position possession prevent principle proceedings proper public officers question Railroad Company rates reason record regarded relation relief remedy require restrain seems simply sovereign statute sued suit supreme court sustained tion tort treasury true unconstitutional United violation Virginia writ wrong
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 112 - The state not being a party on the record, and the court having jurisdiction over those who are parties on the record, the true question is, not one of jurisdiction, but whether, in the exercise of its jurisdiction, the court ought to make a decree against the defendants ; whether they are to be considered as having a real interest, or as being only nominal parties.
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 113 - Persons who not only have an interest in the controversy, but an interest, of such a nature that a final decree cannot be made without either affecting that interest, or leaving the controversy in such a condition that its final termination may be wholly inconsistent with equity and good conscience.
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.
Side 78 - State, or for compensation in damages, or, in a proper case where the remedy at law is inadequate, for an injunction to prevent such wrong and injury, or for a mandamus, in a like case, to enforce upon the defendant the performance of a plain legal duty, purely ministerial, is not within the meaning of the eleventh amendment, an action against the State," citing, among other cases, the McComb case.
Side 100 - There is a wide difference between a suit against individuals, holding official positions under a State to prevent them, under the sanction of an unconstitutional statute, from committing by some positive act a wrong or trespass, and a suit against officers of a State merely to test the constitutionality of a state statute, in the enforcement of which those officers will act only by formal judicial proceedings in the courts of the State.
Side 77 - The first class is where the suit is brought against the officers of the State, as representing the State's action and liability, thus making it, though not a party to the record, the real party against which the judgment will so operate as to compel it to specifically perform its contracts.
Bibliografisk informasjon
| Tittel | The Doctrine of Non-suability of the State in the United States ... Utgave 3 av The Johns Hopkins University studies in historical and political science, ISSN 0075-3904 |
| Forfatter | Karl Singewald |
| Utgiver | Johns Hopkins Press, 1910 |
| Original fra | University of Michigan |
| Digitalisert | 18. aug 2006 |
| Lengde | 118 sider |
| Eksporter sitat | BiBTeX EndNote RefMan |