Citation network
Department of Energy Vs. Ohio
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 21, 1992
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. 607 (1992) October Term, 1991 Syllabus United States Department of Energy V. OhioSearch
-
with the common rule that any waiver of the Government's sovereign immunity must be unequivocal. See United States v. MitchellSearch
-
strictly in favor of the sovereign and not enlarged beyond what the language requires. See, e. g., Ruckelshaus v. SierraSearch
-
Together with No. 90-1517, Ohio et al. v. UnitedSearch
-
who may be fined, see, e. g., Engel v. DavenportSearch
-
the State's exercise of power in the particular circumstances is expressly permitted by federal law, see, e. g., Gully v. FirstSearch
-
here, see, e. g., ICC v. LocomotiveSearch
-
conflicts with the Ninth Circuit's conclusion that that section does not constitute such a waiver. See California v. DepartmentSearch
-
F.2d 222 (1988). One Court of Appeals has found such a waiver in the CWA's citizen-suit section. See Sierra Club v. LujanSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
that RCRA's federalfacilities section does not waive federal sovereign immunity from punitive fines. See Mitzelfelt v. DepartmentSearch
-
United States v. WashingtonSearch
-
other 615 II We start with a common rule, with which we presume congressional familiarity, see McNary v. HaitianSearch
-
that any waiver of the National Government's sovereign immunity must be unequivocal, see United States v. MitchellSearch
-
Waivers of immunity must be 'construed strictly in favor of the sovereign,' McMahon v. UnitedSearch
-
beyond what the language requires.' Eastern Transportation Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Ruckelshaus v. SierraSearch
-
must be read as encompassing all the terms of the penalty provisions, including their limitations, see, e. g., Engel v. DavenportSearch
-
RCRA. 620 haus, 463 U. S., at 685-686. Ohio's reading is therefore to be rejected. See United States v. NordicSearch
-
Beyond the dictionaries, examples of usage in the coercive sense abound. See, e. g., Penfield Co. of Cal. v. SECSearch
-
United States v. WestinghouseSearch
-
Latrobe Steel Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Vincent v. PreiserSearch
-
Maltaman v. StateSearch
-
Labor Relations Comm'n v. FallSearch
-
The term's context, of course, may supply a clarity that the term lacks in isolation, see, e. g., Shell Oil Co. v. IowaSearch
-
s exercise of power in the particular circumstances is expressly permitted by federal law. See, e. g., Gully v. FirstSearch
-
International Bridge Co. v. NewSearch
-
a) indicates a likely adoption of our prior interpretation of that language. See, e. g., ICC v. LocomotiveSearch
-
Northcross v. MemphisSearch
-
Mitzelfelt v. DepartmentSearch
-
punitive fines that are never so much as mentionedP 17We also reject Ohio's argument purporting to rest on Hancock v. TrainSearch
-
of both statutes and writing the waivers out of existence. Canadian Aviator, Ltd. v. UnitedSearch
-
Block v. NorthSearch
-
intention of Congress, United States v. NordicSearch
-
United States v. MitchellSearch
-
Crandon v. UnitedSearch
-
Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. PuebloSearch
-
that simply does not exist in this statute. Rothschild v. UnitedSearch
-
Arkansas v. OklahomaSearch
-
k). Indeed, in EPA v. OklahomaSearch
-
decided together with Arkansas v. OklahomaSearch
-
Brief for Petitioner, O. T. 1991, No. 90-1266, p. 18, n. 21 (emphasis added). Cf. Arkansas v. OklahomaSearch
-
as a basis for rejecting an explicit waiver. Keifer & Keifer v. ReconstructionSearch
-
Franchise Tax Bd. of California v. PostalSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial