Citation network
Edelman Vs. Jordan
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 25, 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
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 651 (1974) U.S. Supreme Court Edelman v. JordanSearch
-
U.S. 651 (1974) Edelman v. JordanSearch
-
general revenues of the State, and was indistinguishable from an award of damages against the State. Ford Motor Co. v. DepartmentSearch
-
of Treasury, Page 415 U. S. 652 323 U. S. 459 , followed. Shapiro v. ThompsonSearch
-
State Dept. of Health and Rehabilitation Services v. ZarateSearch
-
Sterrett v. Mothers'Search
-
immunity and consent to the bringing of respondent's suit by participating in the federal AABD program. Parden v. TerminalSearch
-
R. Co., 377 U. S. 184 , and Petty v. Tennessee-MissouriSearch
-
not assert in the District Court, since that defense partakes of the nature of a jurisdictional bar. Ford Motor Co. v. DepartmentSearch
-
Act itself. The Court of Appeals rejected these contentions and affirmed the judgment of the District Court. Jordan v. WeaverSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
conflict on the Eleventh Amendment issue with the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Rothstein v. WymanSearch
-
Term in 1791 was brought against the State of Maryland by a firm of Dutch bankers as creditors. Vanstophorst v. MarylandSearch
-
of the State of Georgia, the Court, after argument, rendered in February, 1793, its short-lived decision in Chisholm v. GeorgiaSearch
-
is immune from suits brought in federal courts by her own citizens, as well as by citizens of another State. Hans v. LouisianaSearch
-
Duhne v. NewSearch
-
Great Northern Life Insurance Co. v. ReadSearch
-
Parden v. TerminalSearch
-
Employees v. DepartmentSearch
-
is not named a party to the action, the suit may nonetheless be barred by the Eleventh Amendment. In Ford Motor Co. v. DepartmentSearch
-
be paid from public funds in the state treasury is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Great Northern Life Insurance Co. v. ReadSearch
-
Kennecott Copper Corp. v. StateSearch
-
obviously not be paid out of the pocket of petitioner Edelman. Addressing himself to a similar situation in Rothstein v. WymanSearch
-
of Illinois, and thus the award resembles far more closely the monetary award against the State itself, Ford Motor Co. v. DepartmentSearch
-
in nature. The Court's opinion in Ex parte Young hewed to no such line. Its citation of Hagood v. SouthernSearch
-
which has probably had greater impact on state treasuries than did that awarded in Ex parte Young. In Graham v. RichardsonSearch
-
officials were prohibited from denying welfare benefits to otherwise qualified recipients who were aliens. In Goldberg v. KellySearch
-
this portion of the District Court's decree, we would be obligated to overrule the Court's holding in Ford Motor Co. v. DepartmentSearch
-
that its conclusion on the Eleventh Amendment issue was supported by this Court's holding in Department of Employment v. UnitedSearch
-
of Colorado has not consented to suit in a federal forum even where the plaintiff is the United States, see Monaco v. MississippiSearch
-
Id. at 385 U. S. 358 . Monaco v. MississippiSearch
-
of the Eleventh Amendment and sovereign immunity, we think it unlikely that the Court in Department of Employment v. UnitedSearch
-
and treat the Eleventh Amendment Page 415 U. S. 671 aspects of such relief in a written opinion. Shapiro v. ThompsonSearch
-
of such a suit by participating in the federal AABD program. The Court of Appeals relied upon our holdings in Parden v. TerminalSearch
-
R. Co., 377 U. S. 184 (1964), and Petty v. Tennessee-MissouriSearch
-
U. S. 275 (1959), Page 415 U. S. 672 and on the dissenting opinion of Judge Bright in Employees v. DepartmentSearch
-
against a general class of defendants which literally included States or state instrumentalities. Similarly, Petty v. Tennessee-MissouriSearch
-
Murray v. WilsonSearch
-
U. S. 171 (1909). We see no reason to retreat from the Court's statement in Great Northern Life Insurance Co. v. ReadSearch
-
on the part of the State to be sued in the federal courts. And while this Court has, in cases such as J. I. Case Co. v. BorakSearch
-
It is, of course, true that Rosado v. WymanSearch
-
and may not include a retroactive award which requires the payment of funds from the state treasury, Ford Motor Co. v. DepartmentSearch
-
of this resolution, since it has been well settled since the decision Page 415 U. S. 678 in Ford Motor Co. v. DepartmentSearch
-
and 1343(3) and (4). Though not briefed by the parties before this Court, we think that, under our decision in Hagans v. LavineSearch
-
Citing Chevron Oil Co. v. HusonSearch
-
Monaco v. MississippiSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial