Citation network
Howlett Vs. Rose
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 11, 1990
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. 356 (1990) U.S. Supreme Court Howlett v. RoseSearch
-
U.S. 356 (1990) Howlett By and Through Howlett v. RoseSearch
-
that it lacked jurisdiction over the board, and dismissed the complaint against the board with prejudice, citing Hill v. DepartmentSearch
-
defendant in Hill was a state agency protected from suit in federal court by the Eleventh Amendment, see Quern v. JordanSearch
-
Will v. MichiganSearch
-
precluding litigation of the federal claim is a federal question, which this Court reviews de novo. See, e.g., James v. KentuckySearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
courts have a concurrent duty to enforce federal law according to their regular modes of procedure. See, e.g., Claflin v. HousemanSearch
-
Douglas v. NewSearch
-
of disagreement with its content or a refusal to recognize the superior authority of its source. See, e.g., Mondou v. NewSearch
-
of judicial administration, see, e.g., Douglas, supra, unless that rule is preempted by federal law, see Felder v. CaseySearch
-
St. Louis v. PraprotnikSearch
-
immunized by state law, even though the federal cause of action is being asserted in state court. See, e.g., Martinez v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Court could hear against a school board, it was no less violative of federal law. Cf. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. BurnetteSearch
-
law challenges to be first presented to the District Court of Appeal and the Florida Supreme Court decision in Hill v. DepartmentSearch
-
So.2d 706, 708 (1989) (emphasis in original). The Court of Appeal acknowledged our holding in Martinez v. CaliforniaSearch
-
it was also subject to suit for violations of its nondiscretionary duty not to violate the Constitution. See Owen v. CitySearch
-
Department of Corrections v. HillSearch
-
So.2d 118 (1986). The State Supreme Court answered that question in the negative. Hill v. DepartmentSearch
-
defendant in Hill was a state agency protected from suit in a federal court by the Eleventh Amendment. See Quern v. JordanSearch
-
As we held last Term in Will v. MichiganSearch
-
judgment precluding litigation of the federal claim is itself a federal question which we review de novo. See Johnson v. MississippiSearch
-
James v. KentuckySearch
-
Barr v. CitySearch
-
Rogers v. AlabamaSearch
-
Staub v. CitySearch
-
of Baxley, 355 U. S. 313 , 355 U. S. 318 -319 (1958) (quoting Ward v. LoveSearch
-
Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. BombolisSearch
-
Tafflin v. LevittSearch
-
Mondou v. NewSearch
-
Testa v. KattSearch
-
St. Louis, B. & M.R. Co. v. TaylorSearch
-
Miles v. IllinoisSearch
-
Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. BombolisSearch
-
FERC v. MississippiSearch
-
with utmost caution before deciding that it is obligated to entertain the claim. See Missouri ex rel. Southern R. Co. v. MayfieldSearch
-
Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. v. MusgroveSearch
-
Southland Corp. v. KeatingSearch
-
Missouri v. LewisSearch
-
their own neutral procedural rules to federal claims, unless those rules are preempted by federal law. See Felder v. CaseySearch
-
U. S. 234 , in violation of the Supremacy Clause. We unanimously reaffirmed these principles in Testa v. KattSearch
-
Id. at 330 U. S. 393 (quoting Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. BombolisSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial