Citation network
Fitzpatrick Vs. Bitzer
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 28, 1976
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. 445 (1976) U.S. Supreme Court Fitzpatrick v. BitzerSearch
-
U.S. 445 (1976) Fitzpatrick v. BitzerSearch
-
from the State's treasury, and were thus precluded by the Eleventh Amendment and by this Court's decision in Edelman v. JordanSearch
-
cases is whether, as against the shield of sovereign immunity afforded the State by the Eleventh Amendment, Edelman v. JordanSearch
-
the State's treasury, and were therefore precluded by the Eleventh Amendment and by this Court's decision in Edelman v. JordanSearch
-
to be indistinguishable from a monetary award against the State itself which had been prohibited in Ford Motor Co. v. DepartmentSearch
-
the plaintiffs in that case could not avail themselves of the doctrine of waiver expounded in cases such as Parden v. TerminalSearch
-
R. Co., 377 U. S. 184 (1964), and Employees v. MissouriSearch
-
had been held in Monroe v. PapeSearch
-
the federal-state balance has been carried forward by more recent decisions of this Court. See, e.g., South Carolina v. KatzenbachSearch
-
But we think that the Eleventh Amendment, and the principle of state sovereignty which it embodies, see Hans v. LouisianaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
See Edelman v. JordanSearch
-
Ford Motor Co. v. DepartmentSearch
-
Together with No. 75-283, Bitzer, Chairman, State Employees' Retirement Commission, et al. v. MatthewsSearch
-
S.Rep. No. 92-415, pp. 111 (1971). Cf. National League of Cities v. UserySearch
-
VII. In my view, Connecticut may not assert sovereign immunity for the reason I expressed in dissent in Employees v. MissouriSearch
-
Parden v. TerminalSearch
-
of the Fourteenth Amendment, two of the enumerated powers granted Congress in the Constitution. Cf. Oregon v. MitchellSearch
-
Employees v. MissouriSearch
-
Katzenbach v. MorganSearch
-
I must recognize that it has been so construed in Edelman v. JordanSearch
-
Eleventh Amendment were applicable, I would place fee in the same category as other litigation costs. Cf. Fairmont Co. v. MinnesotaSearch
-
Justice Marshall has pointed out, the Eleventh Amendment is not literally applicable to this situation. See Cohens v. VirginiaSearch
-
Employees v. MissouriSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Fitzpatrick v. BitzerSearch
-
the Eleventh Amendment, Edelman v. JordanSearch
-
and Employees v. MissouriSearch
-
Hans v. LouisianaSearch
-
Cf. National League of Cities v. UserySearch
-
the Constitution. Cf. Oregon v. MitchellSearch
-
Cf. Fairmont Co. v. MinnesotaSearch
-
See Cohens v. VirginiaSearch
-
Edelman v. JordanSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial