Citation network
Block Vs. Board of School Lands
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 02, 1983
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
-
Block v. BoardSearch
-
of School Lands - 461 U.S. 273 (1983) U.S. Supreme Court Block v. BoardSearch
-
of School Lands, 461 U.S. 273 (1983) Block v. NorthSearch
-
area. The rule that a precisely drawn, detailed statute preempts more general remedies is applicable here. Cf. Brown v. GSASearch
-
the QTA. I It is undisputed that under the equal-footing doctrine first set forth in Pollard's Lessee v. HaganSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Amoco Oil Co. v. StateSearch
-
by the State, as respondent in No. 81-2337, as a ground for affirming the judgment in its favor. See United States v. NewSearch
-
Dayton Board of Education v. BrinkmanSearch
-
immunity from suing the United States in the absence of an express waiver of this immunity by Congress. California v. ArizonaSearch
-
Minnesota v. UnitedSearch
-
Kansas v. UnitedSearch
-
Malone v. BowdoinSearch
-
ultimately did not prove to be successful. This Court appeared to accept the device in early cases. See United States v. LeeSearch
-
Meigs v. M'Clung'sSearch
-
the Court cut through the tangle of the previous decisions and applied to land disputes the rule announced in Larson v. DomesticSearch
-
contrary to the wish of Congress, an unlimited number of suits involving stale claims might be instituted. Brown v. GSASearch
-
applicable in the present context. Accordingly, we need not reach the question whether, prior to 1972, Larson v. DomesticSearch
-
Foreign Corp., 337 Page 461 U. S. 286 U.S. 682 (1949), and Malone v. BowdoinSearch
-
those conditions must be strictly observed, and exceptions thereto are not to be lightly implied. See, e.g., Lehman v. NakshianSearch
-
Soriano v. UnitedSearch
-
supra, at 444 U. S. 117 -118 (citing Soriano v. UnitedSearch
-
Indian Towing Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Weber v. BoardSearch
-
of Harbor Comm'rs, 18 Wall. 57, 70 (1873). Accord, Guaranty Trust Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
of express intent to the contrary. This Court has never sanctioned such a rule. Quite the contrary, in United States v. LouisianaSearch
-
one that did not expressly mention States, barred a State's claim against the Federal Government. And in Minnesota v. UnitedSearch
-
public rights, revenues, and property from injury and loss, by the negligence of public officers. Guaranty Trust Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
f). A constitutional claim can become time-barred just as any other claim can. See, e.g., Board of Regents v. TomanioSearch
-
States, 352 U. S. 270 (1957). Nothing in the Constitution requires otherwise. V AdmittedlySearch
-
Together with No. 82-132, North Dakota ex rel. Board of University and School Lands v. BlockSearch
-
County of Bonner v. AndersonSearch
-
Simons v. VinsonSearch
-
Gardner v. HarrisSearch
-
Switzerland Co. v. UdallSearch
-
cert. denied, 380 U.S. 914 (1965). One Court of Appeals, however, construed Malone narrowly. See Armstrong v. UdallSearch
-
Andros v. RuppSearch
-
Great American Federal Savings & Loan Assn. v. NovotnySearch
-
U. S. 516 , 454 U. S. 527 , n. 21 (1982) (quoting Wilson v. IsemingerSearch
-
to the extent it extinguished claims that could have been brought at the time of its passage. See Herrick v. BoquillasSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Block v. BoardSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial