The Doctrine of Non-suability of the State in the United StatesJohns Hopkins Press, 1910 - 117 sider |
Inni boken
Resultat 1-5 av 19
Side iii
... EQUITABLE RE- LIEF AGAINST WRONGFUL ACTS ... 67 I CHAP . VI . EX PARTE YOUNG ..... 90 CHAP . VII . FEDERAL QUESTION - WHEN INVOLVED IN SUITS AGAINST STATE OFFICERS . 105 CHAP . VIII . THE RELATION OF THE STATE TO SUITS AGAINST ITS ...
... EQUITABLE RE- LIEF AGAINST WRONGFUL ACTS ... 67 I CHAP . VI . EX PARTE YOUNG ..... 90 CHAP . VII . FEDERAL QUESTION - WHEN INVOLVED IN SUITS AGAINST STATE OFFICERS . 105 CHAP . VIII . THE RELATION OF THE STATE TO SUITS AGAINST ITS ...
Side 43
... equitable , that operates by way of direct defense to the suit ; but does not warrant a separate claim , or a demand for original and independent relief , since that would be in effect a suit against the state . " It is well settled ...
... equitable , that operates by way of direct defense to the suit ; but does not warrant a separate claim , or a demand for original and independent relief , since that would be in effect a suit against the state . " It is well settled ...
Side 47
... equitable ground exists . An act of Ohio imposed a tax of $ 50,000 a year on each branch of the Bank of the United States situate in Ohio , and in- structed the State auditor to issue his warrant for distraint therefor in case of ...
... equitable ground exists . An act of Ohio imposed a tax of $ 50,000 a year on each branch of the Bank of the United States situate in Ohio , and in- structed the State auditor to issue his warrant for distraint therefor in case of ...
Side 48
... equitable grounds exist , it will be presumed that an officer will perform a duty laid upon him by statute , and the nature of the threatened tort will be determined by the statute under color of which he is about to act . The main ...
... equitable grounds exist , it will be presumed that an officer will perform a duty laid upon him by statute , and the nature of the threatened tort will be determined by the statute under color of which he is about to act . The main ...
Side 50
... equitable grounds exist , he should not be enjoined from the act . The only case in which the supreme court has departed from this doctrine is Belknap v . Schild . In that case , a that , the taxes being valid , the right to have the ...
... equitable grounds exist , he should not be enjoined from the act . The only case in which the supreme court has departed from this doctrine is Belknap v . Schild . In that case , a that , the taxes being valid , the right to have the ...
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.