Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Dellmuth Vs. Muth

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 15, 1989

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

65 entries 5 linked 60 unlinked
Show
  1. Honig Vs. Doe US Supreme Court · Jan 20, 1988
  2. United States Vs. Bass US Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1971
    Relied / Followed
  3. Fitzpatrick Vs. Bitzer US Supreme Court · Jun 28, 1976
  4. Hutto Vs. Finney US Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1978
  5. Quern Vs. Jordan US Supreme Court · Mar 05, 1979
  6. U.S. 223 (1989) U.S. Supreme Court Dellmuth v. Muth
    Search
  7. U.S. 223 (1989) Dellmuth v. Muth
    Search
  8. Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon
    Search
  9. School Committee of Burlington v. Department
    Search
  10. the school district and the Commonwealth. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed. Muth v. Central
    Search
  11. Id. at 128. To resolve a conflict among the Circuits, we granted certiorari sub nom. Gilhool v. Muth
    Search
  12. the question whether the EHA abrogates the States' sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. Compare David D. v. Dartmouth
    Search
  13. School Committee, 775 F.2d 411 (CA1 1985) (finding abrogation), with Gary A. v. New
    Search
  14. Trier High School Dist. No. 203, 796 F.2d 940 (CA7 1986), Doe v. Maher
    Search
  15. F.2d 1470 (CA9 1986), and Miener v. Missouri
    Search
  16. may abrogate the States' Eleventh Amendment immunity. Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer
    Search
  17. Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman
    Search
  18. U. S. 89 , 465 U. S. 100 (1984), quoting Hutto v. Finney
    Search
  19. and imperfect confidence will not suffice given the special constitutional concerns in this area. Cf. Johnson v. Robison
    Search
  20. Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon
    Search
  21. also offers us another avenue to affirm the result below, which is to overrule the longstanding holding of Hans v. Louisiana
    Search
  22. et seq. (1982 ed. and Supp.V). For reasons I have set out elsewhere, see Welch v. Texas
    Search
  23. U. S. 258 -302 (1985) (BRENNAN, J., dissenting), I would accept respondent Muth's invitation to overrule Hans v. Louisiana
    Search
  24. Muth v. Central
    Search
  25. See Smith v. Robinson
    Search
  26. Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist. v. Rowley
    Search
  27. citation omitted). See also Smith v. Robinson
    Search
  28. of relief sought, and hence plainly contemplates tuition reimbursement actions. See School Committee of Burlington v. Department
    Search
  29. remedy is sought, and that Congress thereby abrogated Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court. David D. v. Dartmouth
    Search
  30. when state amenability to suit is the logical inference from the language and structure of the text. Cf. Edelman v. Jordan
    Search
  31. quoting Murray v. Wilson
    Search
  32. statement of congressional intent, Rice v. Santa
    Search
  33. lead the Court to consider both the logical inferences to be drawn from the text and structure of the EHA, cf. Edelman v. Jordan
    Search
  34. supra, at 415 U. S. 673 , and the statute's legislative history, see Employees v. Missouri
    Search
  35. was enacted in its present form in 1975, Edelman v. Jordan
    Search
  36. U. S. 651 (1974), and Employees v. Missouri
    Search
  37. text and structure in determining whether Congress intended to abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity. Indeed, in Quern v. Jordan
    Search
  38. the Court evidently remained of the view that legislative history might be taken into account. Cf. Hutto v. Finney
    Search
  39. U. S. 678 , 437 U. S. 693 -694 (1978). And later still, in Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman
    Search
  40. for in Will v. Michigan
    Search
  41. ongressional intent was ignored by the U.S. Supreme Court when . . . it handed down its decision in Smith v. Robinson
    Search
  42. e)(2). See also School Committee of Burlington v. Department
    Search
  43. BRENNAN convincingly demonstrates, this statute passes even the stringent test set forth in Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon
    Search
  44. Pennsylvania v. Union
    Search
  45. U.S. Supreme Court Dellmuth v. Muth
    Search
  46. Gilhool v. Muth
    Search
  47. the Eleventh Amendment. Compare David D. v. Dartmouth
    Search
  48. Gary A. v. New
    Search
  49. Doe v. Maher
    Search
  50. and Miener v. Missouri
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial