Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

United States Vs. Texas

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Apr 05, 1993

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

60 entries 5 linked 55 unlinked
Show
  1. United States Vs. North US Supreme Court · Dec 08, 1884
  2. United States Vs. Sherman US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1878
  3. Mobil Oil Corp. Vs. Higginbotham US Supreme Court · Jun 05, 1978
  4. Library of Congress Vs. Shaw US Supreme Court · Jul 01, 1986
  5. United States Vs. Sanborn US Supreme Court · Apr 28, 1890
  6. U.S. 529 (1993) October Term, 1992 Syllabus United States Et Al. V. Texas
    Search
  7. is not subject to prejudgment interest because it is a penalty rather than a contractual obligation. Rodgers v. United
    Search
  8. REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court. In this case we decide the question left open in West Virginia v. United
    Search
  9. issue, the District Court adopted the approach taken by the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Gallegos v. Lyng
    Search
  10. Ibid. (quoting Mobil Oil Corp. v. Higginbotham
    Search
  11. West Virginia v. United
    Search
  12. States, 479 U. S., at 310 (citing Royal Indemnity Co. v. United
    Search
  13. States, 313 U. S. 289 , 295-297 (1941)). In Board of Comm'rs of Jackson County v. United
    Search
  14. not abrogate the Federal Government's common-law right to collect prejudgment interest against the States. Gallegos v. Lyng
    Search
  15. F.2d 788 (1989). The Second, Third, and Eighth Circuits all hold to the contrary. See Perales v. United
    Search
  16. Pennsylvania Dept. of Public Welfare v. United
    Search
  17. Scott v. Block
    Search
  18. Isbrandtsen Co. v. Johnson
    Search
  19. Astoria Federal Savings & Loan Assn. v. Solimino
    Search
  20. to the question addressed by the common law. Mobil Oil Corp. v. Higginbotham
    Search
  21. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. LTV
    Search
  22. Corp., 496 U. S. 633 , 650 (1990) (quoting United States v. Price
    Search
  23. debt for which it owes prejudgment interest, but rather a penalty unilaterally imposed by Congress. See Rodgers v. United
    Search
  24. assumed.6 6 Both Texas and the Court of Appeals rely upon our decision in Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman
    Search
  25. unless the State's consent to pay such interest has been expressed in a statute or binding contract. United States v. North
    Search
  26. and able to discharge its obligations promptly.3 created, the rule in Pennhurst does not apply. See Bell v. New
    Search
  27. has been manifested by an act of its legislature, or by a lawful contract of its executive officers. United States v. Sherman
    Search
  28. Angarica v. Bayard
    Search
  29. U. S., at 216. 2 The individual States retain no sovereign immunity against the Federal Government. United States v. Texas
    Search
  30. to the coercive powers of judicial tribunals is very much alive. See, e. g., Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority v. Metcalf
    Search
  31. law. Ante, at 534. We presume that Congress understands the legal terrain in which it operates, see Cannon v. University
    Search
  32. U. S. 565 , 567-568 (1879) (emphasis added). See also United States v. North
    Search
  33. Trading Co., 253 U. S. 330 , 336 (1920). 4 See n. 3, supra. 5 See, e. g., Attorney General v. Cape
    Search
  34. State v. Thompson
    Search
  35. States could demand prejudgment interest on a debt owed to it by a State. Not until five years later, in West Virginia v. United
    Search
  36. abrogate a principle that it had no reason to think stood in its way. In Board of Comm'rs of Jackson County v. United
    Search
  37. Letter of Nov. 21, 1983, from Senator Charles H. Percy to the Comptroller General (emphasis added). See Texas v. United
    Search
  38. see Bread Political Action Committee v. FEC
    Search
  39. not only does not apply of its own force to the State's obligations to the Federal Government, cf. Library of Congress v. Shaw
    Search
  40. is given in response to considerations offairness. It is denied when its exaction would be inequitable. United States v. Sanborn
    Search
  41. Billings v. United
    Search
  42. Board of Commr's of Jackson County v. United
    Search
  43. Syllabus United States Et Al. V. Texas
    Search
  44. Rodgers v. United
    Search
  45. Gallegos v. Lyng
    Search
  46. Royal Indemnity Co. v. United
    Search
  47. In Board of Comm'rs of Jackson County v. United
    Search
  48. the States. Gallegos v. Lyng
    Search
  49. See Perales v. United
    Search
  50. Scott v. Block
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial