Citation network
Green Vs. Mansour
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Dec 03, 1985
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. 64 (1985) U.S. Supreme Court Green v. MansourSearch
-
U.S. 64 (1985) Green v. MansourSearch
-
be justified as a mere case-management device that is ancillary to a judgment awarding valid prospective relief. Quern v. JordanSearch
-
determined, is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The Court of Appeals affirmed in a consolidated appeal. Banas v. DempseySearch
-
because the sought-after notice and declaratory relief was retrospective in nature, the relief was barred by Edelman v. JordanSearch
-
that, when there is no prospective relief to which notice can be ancillary, even notice of the sort approved in Quern v. JordanSearch
-
a conflict in the Circuits over whether federal courts may order the giving of notice of the sort approved in Quern v. JordanSearch
-
ongoing violation of federal law. The decision by the Court of Appeals in this case agrees with the result in Colbeth v. WilsonSearch
-
Vt.1982), aff'd, 707 F.2d 57 (CA2 1983) (per curiam), but it conflicts with the decisions in Appleyard v. WallaceSearch
-
Randall v. LukhardSearch
-
and Silva v. VowellSearch
-
Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. HaldermanSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
in assuring the supremacy of that law. See Pennhurst, supra, at 465 U. S. 102 . See also Milliken v. BradleySearch
-
of the type approved in Quern v. JordanSearch
-
our decision in Quern. Quern was the last chapter in the litigation that initially gave rise to Edelman v. JordanSearch
-
they had wrongfully withheld on account of their past violations of federal law. The Court of Appeals affirmed, Jordan v. WeaverSearch
-
it was effectively an award of money damages for past Page 474 U. S. 70 violations of federal law. Edelman v. JordanSearch
-
it would effectively result in a federal adjudication of state liability for past violations of federal law. Jordan v. TrainorSearch
-
Ibid. We affirmed in Quern v. JordanSearch
-
U. S. 332 (1979), holding that, although Edelman v. JordanSearch
-
supra, retained continuing vitality after Monell v. NewSearch
-
granted and was sufficiently narrow to retain its character as a mere case-management device. The notice in Quern v. JordanSearch
-
and we have held that under this Act declaratory relief may be available even though an injunction is not. Steffel v. ThompsonSearch
-
Public Service Comm'n v. WycoffSearch
-
The propriety of issuing a declaratory judgment may depend upon equitable considerations, see Samuels v. MackellSearch
-
Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
principles, we have held that a declaratory judgment is not available in a number of instances. In Great Lakes Co. v. HuffmanSearch
-
from issuing injunctions against the collection of such taxes. Id. at 319 U. S. 299 . We held in Samuels v. MackellSearch
-
an injunction. Nor can there be any threat of state officials violating the repealed law in the future. Cf. Steffel v. ThompsonSearch
-
around our decision in Edelman v. JordanSearch
-
Jordan v. WeaverSearch
-
JUSTICE BLACKMUN, and JUSTICE STEVENS join, dissenting. Last Term, in my dissent in Atascadero State Hospital v. ScanlonSearch
-
structure underlying the Court's Eleventh Amendment jurisprudence produces inconsistent decisions. In Quern v. JordanSearch
-
Eleventh Amendment doctrine, I believe that it must reassess a long line of our precedents, beginning with Hans v. LouisianaSearch
-
consequently the Eleventh Amendment was not an effort to reestablish, after Chisholm v. GeorgiaSearch
-
might be available to them to obtain retroactive benefits. App. 132. Similarly, the notice approved in Quern v. JordanSearch
-
Ibid., quoting Jordan v. TrainorSearch
-
words as to why, even under the view of the Eleventh Amendment accepted by the majority in Atascadero State Hospital v. ScanlonSearch
-
case. I JUSTICE BRENNAN's opinion cogently explains how the decision of the majority today repudiates Quern v. JordanSearch
-
The distinction is hardly so neat as the majority implies. The majority cites Milliken v. BradleySearch
-
MARSHALL, and JUSTICE STEVENS join, dissenting. I joined JUSTICE BRENNAN's dissent in Atascadero State Hospital v. ScanlonSearch
-
s Eleventh Amendment approach, as demonstrated by the difference between the result in this case and that in Quern v. JordanSearch
-
S. 332 (1979), is sterile, produces inconsistent decisions, and is in serious need of reconsideration. Cf. Garcia v. SanSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Green v. MansourSearch
-
Banas v. DempseySearch
-
Colbeth v. WilsonSearch
-
Appleyard v. WallaceSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial