Citation network
Scheuer Vs. Rhodes
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 17, 1974
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 232 (1974) U.S. Supreme Court Scheuer v. RhodesSearch
-
U.S. 232 (1974) Scheuer v. RhodesSearch
-
on the campus of Kent State University in Ohio during May, 1970, which was before us, in another context, in Gilligan v. MorganSearch
-
U. S. 41 , 355 U. S. 45 -46 (157) (footnote omitted). Page 416 U. S. 237 See also Gardner v. ToiletSearch
-
bars suits not only against the State when it is the named party, but also when it is the party in fact. Edelman v. JordanSearch
-
Cunningham v. MaconSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Id. at 209 U. S. 159 -160. (Emphasis supplied.) Ex parte Young, like Sterling v. ConstantinSearch
-
the doctrine of Ex parte Young is of no aid to a plaintiff seeking damages from the public treasury, Edelman v. JordanSearch
-
Kennecott Copper Corp. v. StateSearch
-
Ford Motor Co. v. DeptSearch
-
Great Northern Life Insurance Co. v. RealSearch
-
defendants are a permissible remedy in some circumstances notwithstanding the fact that they hold public office. Myers v. AndersonSearch
-
U. S. 368 (1915). See generally Monroe v. PapeSearch
-
Moor v. CountySearch
-
See Gravel v. UnitedSearch
-
and Kilbourn v. ThompsonSearch
-
In United States v. JohnsonSearch
-
other two branches -- long a creature of the common law -- remained committed to the common law. See, e.g., Spalding v. VilasSearch
-
Dalehite v. UnitedSearch
-
that it is better to risk some error and possible injury from such error than not to decide or act at all. In Barr v. MatteoSearch
-
Spalding v. VilasSearch
-
under no circumstances, can the officers of state government be subject to liability under this statute. In Monroe v. PapeSearch
-
id. at 365 U. S. 184 (quoting United States v. ClassicSearch
-
by virtue of some absolute immunity, from liability under its terms. Indeed, as the Court also indicated in Monroe v. PapeSearch
-
supra, the legislative history indicates that there is no absolute immunity. Soon after Monroe v. PapeSearch
-
Mr. Chief Justice Warren noted in Pierson v. RaySearch
-
of this statute. Id. at 341 U. S. 376 . In similar fashion, Pierson v. RaySearch
-
suit, Mr Justice Harlan articulated these considerations in Barr v. MateoSearch
-
the relation of the act complained of to 'matters committed by law to his control or supervision,' Spalding v. VilasSearch
-
Id. at 287 U. S. 397 -398. Gilligan v. MorganSearch
-
U.S. at 413 U. S. 11 -12. (Footnote omitted.) See generally Laird v. TatumSearch
-
of emergency by the chief executive of a State is entitled to great weight, but it is not conclusive. Sterling v. ConstantinSearch
-
Together with No. 72-1318, Krause, Administrator, et al. v. RhodesSearch
-
W. & M., Sess. 2, c. 2. See Stockdale v. HansardSearch
-
Clause. See Tenney v. BrandhoveSearch
-
United States v. JohnsonSearch
-
of Coke and other judges of the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. Id. at 234 et seq. See Floyd v. BarkerSearch
-
in Ashby v. WhiteSearch
-
A. Dicey, The Law of the Constitution 193-194 (10th ed.1959) (footnotes omitted). See generally Barr v. MatteoSearch
-
Damage Actions, 77 Harv.L.Rev. 209, 216 (1963). See also Spalding v. VilasSearch
-
Mr. Justice Frankfurter noted in Tenney v. BrandhoveSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial