Citation network
Seminole Tribe of FlA. Vs. Florida
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Oct 11, 1995
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. 44 (1995) October Term, 1995 Syllabus Seminole Tribe of Florida V. FloridaSearch
-
consent.''' Hans v. LouisianaSearch
-
the 45 Fourteenth Amendment, see, e. g., Fitzpatrick v. BitzerSearch
-
U. S. 445 , and, in a plurality opinion, the Interstate Commerce Clause, Pennsylvania v. UnionSearch
-
for the National Indian Gaming Association et al. by Jerome L. Levine, Frank R. Lawrence, and Kurt V. BlueDogSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
of South Dakota, Dan Morales of Texas, Jeffrey L. Amestoy of Vermont, James S. Gilmore III of Virginia, and Darrell v. McGrawSearch
-
and respondents took an interlocutory appeal of that decision. See Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority v. MetcalfSearch
-
to dismiss, the legal issues presented by the two appeals were virtually identical. See Poarch Band of Creek Indians v. AlabamaSearch
-
Blatchford v. NativeSearch
-
Village of Noatak, 501 U. S. 775 , 779 (1991). That presupposition, first observed over a century ago in Hans v. LouisianaSearch
-
Hans, supra, at 15.7 7 E. g., North Carolina v. TempleSearch
-
Bell v. MississippiSearch
-
Duhne v. NewSearch
-
Ford Motor Co. v. DepartmentSearch
-
Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. v. RedwineSearch
-
Parden v. TerminalSearch
-
supra, at 786. This rule arises from a recognition of the important role played by the Eleventh Amend- States v. MississippiSearch
-
Employees of Dept. of Public Health and Welfare of Mo. v. DepartmentSearch
-
Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. HaldermanSearch
-
Atascadero State Hospital v. ScanlonSearch
-
Welch v. TexasSearch
-
Port Authority TransHudson Corp. v. FeeneySearch
-
Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority v. MetcalfSearch
-
ment and the broader principles that it reflects. See Atascadero State Hospital v. ScanlonSearch
-
emphases deleted). Rather, as we said in Dellmuth v. MuthSearch
-
making its intention unmistakably clear in the language of the statute.''' Id., at 227-228. See also Welch v. TexasSearch
-
statement of its intent to abrogate. Section 2710(d)(7)(A)(i) 8See Ponca Tribe of Oklahoma v. OklahomaSearch
-
Spokane Tribe v. WashingtonSearch
-
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe v. SouthSearch
-
Ponca Tribe of Oklahoma v. OklahomaSearch
-
Maxam v. LowerSearch
-
Kickapoo Tribe of Indians v. KansasSearch
-
Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. MichiganSearch
-
Poarch Band of Creek Indians v. AlabamaSearch
-
See United States v. LockeSearch
-
U. S. 84 , 96 (1985), quoting George Moore Ice Cream Co. v. RoseSearch
-
Syllabus Seminole Tribe of Florida V. FloridaSearch
-
Hans v. LouisianaSearch
-
the Interstate Commerce Clause, Pennsylvania v. UnionSearch
-
Jerome L. Levine, Frank R. Lawrence, and Kurt v. BlueDogSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial