Citation network
Cory Vs. White
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 14, 1982
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. 85 (1982) U.S. Supreme Court Cory v. WhiteSearch
-
U.S. 85 (1982) Cory v. WhiteSearch
-
The Eleventh Amendment bars the statutory interpleader action. Worcester County Trust Co. v. RileySearch
-
U. S. 292 . Contrary to the Court of Appeals' view, Edelman v. JordanSearch
-
of inconsistent death tax claims by the officials of two States. I This case is the sequel to California v. TexasSearch
-
Page 457 U. S. 87 Three weeks after the decision in California v. TexasSearch
-
held that the County Treasurer for Los Angeles County was a citizen of California for diversity purposes, citing Moor v. CountySearch
-
claimant, and that, because a State is not a citizen of itself for diversity purposes, Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. PageSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
as required by the statute. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the order of dismissal. Lummis v. WhiteSearch
-
estate, a citizen of Nevada, to be a claimant for the purposes of statutory interpleader. It recognized that Treinies v. SunshineSearch
-
a suit against two sovereign States barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Recognizing that Worcester County Trust Co. v. RileySearch
-
barred by the Eleventh Amendment, the Court of Appeals, relying on the concurring views of four Justices in California v. TexasSearch
-
held that Edelman v. JordanSearch
-
court jurisdiction in such disputes, we granted certiorari. 452 U.S. 904. II In Worcester County Trust Co. v. RileySearch
-
Id. at 302 U. S. 299 -300. Page 457 U. S. 90 The Court of Appeals' opinion that Edelman v. JordanSearch
-
the State itself, because a judgment payable from state funds was demanded. It was correctly noted that Ford Motor Co. v. DepartmentSearch
-
the Eleventh Amendment if only prospective relief is sought. Whether or not that would be the preferable rule, Edelman v. JordanSearch
-
that such suits were the only ones so barred. JUSTICE BRENNAN, concurring in the judgment. In California v. TexasSearch
-
Justice Stewart and JUSTICE POWELL that Texas v. FloridaSearch
-
the reasons set forth in the opinion of the Court, it is now clear to me that, so long as Worcester County Trust Co. v. RileySearch
-
to provide relief from the possibility of duplicative taxation of this estate, I think it appropriate, under Texas v. FloridaSearch
-
Where such a remedy exists -- even if only in the narrow class of cases falling within the holding of Texas v. FloridaSearch
-
dissenting. The Court today decides two cases arising from the same set of facts, the instant case and California v. TexasSearch
-
taxing the Hughes estate on the basis of domicile, the Court surprisingly concludes in today's decision in California v. TexasSearch
-
I dissent. I The issues before the Court today are substantially identical to those presented in California v. TexasSearch
-
of the Court's opinion, there still is no justiciable controversy between Texas and California. See California v. TexasSearch
-
for which federal interpleader jurisdiction ought to be available. II In our 1978 decision in California v. TexasSearch
-
official is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Page 457 U. S. 96 The concurring opinions in California v. TexasSearch
-
of Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123 (1908), as interpreted in Edelman v. JordanSearch
-
and Edelman v. JordanSearch
-
to believe that resort to federal interpleader is not proscribed by the Eleventh Amendment as construed by Edelman v. JordanSearch
-
In rejecting this interpretation of Edelman, the Court relies at the last on Worcester County Trust Co. v. RileySearch
-
and that the legal assumptions on which Worcester County rested no longer are uniformly valid. See California v. TexasSearch
-
In my view, this premise is wrong. As an alternative to the approach that I embraced in California v. TexasSearch
-
is incompatible with the structure of our federal system. A As Justice Stewart demonstrated in California v. TexasSearch
-
the Court's conclusion in Texas v. FloridaSearch
-
at 437 U. S. 606 . Yet this focus of concern found no justification in the principles actually stated in Texas v. FloridaSearch
-
U. S. 267 , 437 U. S. 273 (1978), quoting Norfolk & Western R. Co. v. MissouriSearch
-
Under these principles, tangible property generally may be taxed only by the State where it is located. Curry v. McCanlessSearch
-
to justify a state succession tax on the transfer of real property occasioned by the death of the owner. Treichler v. WisconsinSearch
-
the State in which a trust's assets are administered and the State in which the trustee is domiciled. See Curry v. McCanlessSearch
-
in a decedent's estate, not located in the State or otherwise dependent on the protection of its laws. See Curry v. McCanlessSearch
-
Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. BradySearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial