Citation network
Port Authority Vs. Feeney
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 30, 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. 299 (1990) U.S. Supreme Court Port Authority v. FeeneySearch
-
U.S. 299 (1990) Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corp. v. FeeneySearch
-
here to assume arguendo that PATH is a state agency entitled to the States' sovereign immunity. Petty v. Tennessee-MissouriSearch
-
Atascadero State Hospital v. ScanlonSearch
-
McKinney 1979). See generally United States Trust Co. of N. Y. v. NewSearch
-
the federal court of jurisdiction over the suits. Relying in part on Port Authority Police Benevolent Assn., Inc. v. PortSearch
-
elaborated its conclusion that the States had not waived the sovereign immunity that extended to PATH. See Leadbeater v. PortSearch
-
Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. HaldermanSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U. S. 89 , 465 U. S. 100 (1984) (quoting Employees v. MissouriSearch
-
Pennsylvania v. UnionSearch
-
Welch v. TexasSearch
-
bar to suit is not absolute. States may consent to suit in federal court, see, e.g., Atascadero State Hospital v. ScanlonSearch
-
U. S. 447 (1883), and, in certain cases, Congress may abrogate the States' sovereign immunity. See, e.g., Dellmuth v. MuthSearch
-
PATH's claim that it is a state agency entitled to the Eleventh Amendment immunity of New York and New Jersey. Petty v. Tennessee-MissouriSearch
-
through any of the statutes that underlie their claims against PATH, and such arguments would be unavailing. See Welch v. TexasSearch
-
State Hospital, supra, 473 U.S. at 473 U. S. 239 - Page 495 U. S. 306 240 (quoting Edelman v. JordanSearch
-
immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts, see, e.g., Florida Dept. of Health and Rehabilitation Services v. FloridaSearch
-
Pennhurst State School Page 495 U. S. 308 and Hospital v. HaldermanSearch
-
Together with Port Authority Trans. Hudson Corp. v. FosterSearch
-
Welch v. TexasSearch
-
Page 495 U. S. 311 agreed to form a union and granted Congress specifically enumerated powers. See Edelman v. JordanSearch
-
Employees v. MissouriSearch
-
Gas Co., supra, at 491 U. S. 14 (1989) (plurality opinion) (quoting Parden v. TerminalSearch
-
not. This Court has found that a private suit against a state agency is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See Alabama v. PughSearch
-
cities are not so integrally related to the State that they are shielded from suit in federal court. In Lincoln County v. LuningSearch
-
Moor v. CountySearch
-
Workman v. NewSearch
-
Chicot County v. SherwoodSearch
-
jurisdiction by providing that county could only be sued in county courts). In Mt. Healthy City Board of Education v. DoyleSearch
-
In Ford Motor Co. v. DepartmentSearch
-
This Court relied on that decision 30 years later in Edelman v. JordanSearch
-
Id. at 415 U. S. 663 . See also Kennecott Copper Corp. v. StateSearch
-
Great Northern Life Insurance Co. v. ReadSearch
-
the terms of which patently attempt to grant immunity from suit in federal court. See Lake Country Estates, Inc. v. TahoeSearch
-
Amendment defense to federal jurisdiction, and twice rejected the specific immunity claim presented. See Petty v. Tennessee-MissouriSearch
-
Lake Country Estates, Inc. v. TahoeSearch
-
Virginia v. TennesseeSearch
-
Barron v. BaltimoreSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Port Authority v. FeeneySearch
-
Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corp. v. FeeneySearch
-
Petty v. Tennessee-MissouriSearch
-
United States Trust Co. of N. Y. v. NewSearch
-
Port Authority Police Benevolent Assn., Inc. v. PortSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial