The Doctrine of Non-suability of the State in the United StatesJohns Hopkins Press, 1910 - 117 sider |
Inni boken
Resultat 1-5 av 20
Side 40
... bill was brought against a railroad company to have certain shares of stock owned by the State , and dividends thereon , applied to State bonds issued in aid of the railroad , for which the State had pledged the stock . The bill was ...
... bill was brought against a railroad company to have certain shares of stock owned by the State , and dividends thereon , applied to State bonds issued in aid of the railroad , for which the State had pledged the stock . The bill was ...
Side 44
... bill on its equity side to enjoin the United States from proceeding upon such judgment , since that is a suit against the United States . In Hill v . United States , 1 the doctrine is reaffirmed that execution upon a judgment in favor ...
... bill on its equity side to enjoin the United States from proceeding upon such judgment , since that is a suit against the United States . In Hill v . United States , 1 the doctrine is reaffirmed that execution upon a judgment in favor ...
Side 48
... bill is brought , it is said , for the purpose of protecting the bank in the exercise of a franchise granted by a law of the United States , which franchise the State of Ohio asserts a right to invade , and is about to invade . It prays ...
... bill is brought , it is said , for the purpose of protecting the bank in the exercise of a franchise granted by a law of the United States , which franchise the State of Ohio asserts a right to invade , and is about to invade . It prays ...
Side 50
... , affect the power of the federal courts in the administration of their regular equitable remedies . In re Tyler , 149 U. S. 164 . 1161 U. S. 10 . bill in equity was brought by the owner of a 50 The Non - Suability of the State .
... , affect the power of the federal courts in the administration of their regular equitable remedies . In re Tyler , 149 U. S. 164 . 1161 U. S. 10 . bill in equity was brought by the owner of a 50 The Non - Suability of the State .
Side 51
Karl Singewald. bill in equity was brought by the owner of a patent against officers of the United States , in charge ... bill prayed for an injunction , and for the destruction of the gate in question , the defendants had no individual ...
Karl Singewald. bill in equity was brought by the owner of a patent against officers of the United States , in charge ... bill prayed for an injunction , and for the destruction of the gate in question , the defendants had no individual ...
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
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 defendants 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 Hitchcock indispensable party 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 McComb McConnaughy non-suability North Carolina Osborn plaintiff Poindexter principle proceedings public officers question Railroad Company rates real ground real party relief remedy restrain right of action Schild Schwalby sovereign sued suits against public supreme court tion tort treasury uncon unconstitutional unconstitutional statute violation Virginia
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.