Andre utgaver - Vis alle
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
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 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.