Citation network
Pennhurst State Sch. Vs. Halderman
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 23, 1984
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. 89 (1984) U.S. Supreme Court Pennhurst State Sch. v. HaldermanSearch
-
U.S. 89 (1984) Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. HaldermanSearch
-
of a state official's action is not one against the State. Pp. 465 U. S. 97 -103. (b) In Edelman v. JordanSearch
-
will not suffice to override the sovereign immunity of the State where the relief effectively is against it. Larson v. DomesticSearch
-
Hospital, a Pennsylvania institution for the care of the mentally retarded. See Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. HaldermanSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
relief were sought. In 1977, following a lengthy trial, the District Court rendered its decision. Halderman v. PennhurstSearch
-
The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed most of the District Court's judgment. Halderman v. PennhurstSearch
-
did not create any substantive rights. Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. HaldermanSearch
-
and concluded that the same result obtained with respect to a pendent state law claim. It reasoned that, because Siler v. LouisvilleSearch
-
original jurisdiction over a suit brought by a citizen of South Carolina against the State of Georgia. Chisholm v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Monaco v. MississippiSearch
-
that the fundamental principle of sovereign immunity limits the grant of judicial authority in Art. III. Thus, in Hans v. LouisianaSearch
-
Id. at 134 U. S. 15 . See Monaco v. MississippiSearch
-
and the Court consistently has held that a State may consent to suit against it in federal court. See, e.g., Clark v. BarnardSearch
-
S. 447 (1883). We have insisted, however, that the State's consent be unequivocally expressed. See, e.g., Edelman v. JordanSearch
-
to the rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to abrogate the Eleventh Amendment immunity, see Fitzpatrick v. BitzerSearch
-
Employees v. MissouriSearch
-
the defendant is proscribed by the Eleventh Amendment. See, e.g., Florida Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. FloridaSearch
-
per curiam). This jurisdictional bar applies regardless of the nature of the relief sought. See, e.g., Missouri v. FiskeSearch
-
Ford Motor Co. v. DepartmentSearch
-
that is in fact a suit against a State is barred regardless of whether it seeks damages or injunctive relief. See Cory v. WhiteSearch
-
has survived, the theory of Young has not been provided an expansive interpretation. Thus, in Edelman v. JordanSearch
-
First, they contend that, under the doctrine of Edelman v. JordanSearch
-
of this Court awarding relief against state officials on the basis of a pendent state law claim. See, e.g., Siler v. LouisvilleSearch
-
state law claim is not barred by the Eleventh Amendment because it seeks only prospective relief as defined in Edelman v. JordanSearch
-
constitutes state action under the Fourteenth Amendment, but not the Eleventh Amendment. Florida Dept. of State v. TreasureSearch
-
that the Young doctrine rests on the need to promote the vindication of federal rights. See, e.g., Quern v. JordanSearch
-
Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. v. RedwineSearch
-
of federal law must be accommodated to the constitutional immunity of the States. This is the significance of Edelman v. JordanSearch
-
Id. at 415 U. S. 665 (quoting Rothstein v. WymanSearch
-
Page 465 U. S. 112 of the dissent was advanced, this Court plainly and explicitly rejected it. In Larson v. DomesticSearch
-
Post at 465 U. S. 164 , n. 48 (quoting Great Northern Life Insurance Co. v. ReadSearch
-
Frankfurter, J., dissenting)). This argument has not been adopted by this Court. See Great Northern Life Insurance Co. v. ReadSearch
-
adjudicate other related claims over which the court otherwise would not have jurisdiction. See, e.g., Mine Workers v. GibbsSearch
-
Osborn v. BankSearch
-
Ashwander v. TVASearch
-
whether that doctrine has a different scope when applied to suits against the State. This is illustrated by Greene v. LouisvilleSearch
-
U. S. 508 . The case then was decided solely on state law grounds. Accord, Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. GreeneSearch
-
barred from awarding damages against the state treasury even though the claim arises under the Constitution. See Quern v. JordanSearch
-
against a State, the Eleventh Amendment bars a federal court from granting any relief on that claim. See Alabama v. PughSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial