Citation network
Papasan Vs. Allain
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jul 01, 1986
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. 265 (1986) U.S. Supreme Court Papasan v. AllainSearch
-
U.S. 265 (1986) Papasan v. AllainSearch
-
was proper since such differential funding was not unconstitutional under San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. RodriguezSearch
-
a past breach of trust and the continuing obligation to meet trust responsibilities asserted by petitioners. Edelman v. JordanSearch
-
U. S. 500 , 446 U. S. 506 -507, n. 7 (1980) (quoting United States v. MorrisonSearch
-
and in lieu of the designated but unavailable lands. See, e.g., ch. 83, 4 Stat. 179 (1826). See generally Andrus v. UtahSearch
-
The Sixteenth Section lands and lands selected in lieu thereof were granted to the State of Mississippi. See Lambert v. StateSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
id. at 382, no Sixteenth Section lands were reserved from sale. City of Corinth v. RobertsonSearch
-
the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, Papasan v. UnitedSearch
-
Holt Civic Club v. TuscaloosaSearch
-
such differential funding was not unconstitutional under this Court's decision in San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. RodriguezSearch
-
Court long ago held that the Amendment bars suits against a State by citizens of that same State as well. See Hans v. LouisianaSearch
-
Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. HaldermanSearch
-
applies only where the underlying authorization upon which the named official acts is asserted to be illegal. See Cory v. WhiteSearch
-
This is true if the relief is expressly denominated as damages. See, e.g., Ford Motor Co. v. DepartmentSearch
-
to an award of damages for a past violation of federal law, even though styled as something else. See, e.g., Green v. MansourSearch
-
the Eleventh Amendment, even though accompanied by a substantial ancillary effect on the state treasury. See Milliken v. BradleySearch
-
Compare, e.g., 440 U. S. Jordan, 440 Page 478 U. S. 279 U.S. 332 (1979), with Green v. MansourSearch
-
perpetual trust, with the State as trustee, for the benefit of the public schools. Relying on Alamo Land & Cattle Co. v. ArizonaSearch
-
U. S. 295 (1976), and Lassen v. ArizonaSearch
-
lands were given to the State in fee simple absolute, and that no binding federal obligation was imposed. See Alabama v. SchmidtSearch
-
bound, for the purposes of this review, to take the well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint as true. Miree v. DeKalbSearch
-
Gardner v. ToiletSearch
-
to the United States. Plyler v. DoeSearch
-
as true, we are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation. See, e.g., Briscoe v. LaHueSearch
-
taxable property, since federal land, a large portion of the new States, was not taxable by them. See generally Andrus v. UtahSearch
-
inhabitants of each township was apparently interpreted as vesting legal title in the State itself. See, e.g., Alabama v. SchmidtSearch
-
A State may consent to be sued in federal court. Clark v. BarnardSearch
-
a state official is sued and held liable in his individual capacity, however, even damages may be awarded. See Scheuer v. RhodesSearch
-
of trust and loss of the corpus until such time as the trustee expressly repudiates the trust. See, e.g., Benedict v. NewSearch
-
to the State depends on the federal laws that transferred that interest. See California ex rel. State Lands Comm'n v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 457 U. S. 273 , 457 U. S. 279 (1982) (citing Borax Consolidated, Ltd. v. LosSearch
-
of that trust. Each of these possible conclusions finds some support in this Court's prior cases. In Cooper v. RobertsSearch
-
The Court adopted this same reasoning in Alabama v. SchmidtSearch
-
U.S. at 232 U. S. 173 -174 (citations omitted). See also Stuart v. EastonSearch
-
quoting Kerlin v. CampbellSearch
-
of some of the earlier grants conceived of those grants as conveying a fee interest to the States. See also Brooks v. KoonceSearch
-
U.S. 486 (1927) (per curiam), aff'g Sloan v. BlythevilleSearch
-
they provided for lands for the general benefit of the schools in the State. However, in Ervien v. UnitedSearch
-
Id. at 251 U. S. 48 . More recently, the Court in Lassen v. ArizonaSearch
-
Alamo Land & Cattle Co. v. ArizonaSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Papasan v. AllainSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial