Citation network
Lapides Vs. Board of Regents of Univ. System of GA.
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 25, 2002
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
-
Lapides v. BoardSearch
-
of Regents of Univ. System of Ga. - 535 U.S. 613 (2002) OCTOBER TERM, 2001 Syllabus LAPIDES v. BOARDSearch
-
federal court. pp. 617-624. (a) Because this case does not present a valid federal claim against Georgia, see Will v. MichiganSearch
-
that a State's voluntary appearance in federal court amounts to a waiver of its Eleventh Amendment immunity, Clark v. BarnardSearch
-
Gardner v. NewSearch
-
Gunter v. AtlanticSearch
-
and has often cited with approval the cases embodying that principle, see, e. g., College Savings Bank v. FloridaSearch
-
n. 3. Here, Georgia was brought involuntarily into the case as a defendant in state 614 614 LAPIDES v. BOARDSearch
-
States to achieve unfair tactical advantages, if not in this case, then in others, see Wisconsin Dept. of Corrections v. SchachtSearch
-
state law does not authorize its attorney general to waive Eleventh Amendment immunity and because, in Ford Motor Co. v. DepartmentSearch
-
of Oklahoma, D. Michael Fisher of Pennsylvania, Paul G. Summers of Ten- 616 616 LAPIDES v. BOARDSearch
-
from suit in federal court by citizens of other States, U. S. Const., Amdt. 11, and by its own citizens as well, Hans v. LouisianaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
case from state to federal court, the State had waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Atascadero State Hospital v. ScanlonSearch
-
The State appealed the District Court's Eleventh Amendment ruling. See Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority v. MetcalfSearch
-
And, that being so, the State retained the legal right to assert its immunity, even after removal. See Ford Motor Co. v. DepartmentSearch
-
claim for money damages might be asserted. Will v. MichiganSearch
-
federal claim against the State. Nor need we address the scope of waiver by removal in a 618 618 LAPIDES v. BOARDSearch
-
question, ordinarily a matter of discretion, to the Federal District Court for decision in the first instance. Moor v. CountySearch
-
just described. And, in light of differences of view among the lower courts, we shall do so. Compare McLaughlin v. BoardSearch
-
and Newfield House, Inc. v. MassachusettsSearch
-
with Estate of Porter ex rel. Nelson v. IllinoisSearch
-
Silver v. BaggianoSearch
-
and Gwinn Area Community Schools v. MichiganSearch
-
by citizens of another State, U. S. Const., Arndt. 11, and (as interpreted) by its own citizens. Hans v. LouisianaSearch
-
that a State's voluntary appearance in federal court amounted to a waiver of its Eleventh Amendment immunity. Clark v. BarnardSearch
-
that it voluntarily files in federal court. Gardner v. NewSearch
-
of the law as valid, often citing with approval the cases embodying that principle. See, e. g., College Savings Bank v. FloridaSearch
-
Employees of Dept. of Public Health and Welfare of Mo. v. DepartmentSearch
-
Petty v. Tennessee-MissouriSearch
-
Bridge Comm'n, 359 U. S. 275 , 276 (1959) (citing Clark). 620 620 LAPIDES v. BOARDSearch
-
Chicago, R.1. & P. R. Co. v. MartinSearch
-
to achieve litigation advantages. See Wisconsin Dept. of Corrections v. SchachtSearch
-
with the generous interlocutory appeal provisions available in federal, but not in state, court. Compare Mitchell v. ForsythSearch
-
S. 511 , 524-530 (1985) (authorizing interlocutory appeal of adverse qualified immunity determination), with Turner v. GilesSearch
-
hopes. Motives are difficult to evaluate, while jurisdictional rules should be clear. See Hanover Star Milling Co. v. MetcalfSearch
-
e), (f), reprinted in 2 Ga. Code 622 622 LAPIDES v. BOARDSearch
-
the Eleventh Amendment waiver rules are different when a State's federal-court participation is involuntary. See Hans v. LouisianaSearch
-
contexts, in which such matters are questions of federal 623 law, cf., e. g., Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. DoeSearch
-
voluntarily without giving up immunity or to assert immunity despite a previous effort to waive. See United States v. UnitedSearch
-
see also Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. CitizenSearch
-
to avoid accidental waivers. But we believe the rule is a clear one, easily applied by both 624 624 LAPIDES v. BOARDSearch
-
Syllabus Lapides V. BoardSearch
-
Will v. MichiganSearch
-
Clark v. BarnardSearch
-
College Savings Bank v. FloridaSearch
-
Ford Motor Co. v. DepartmentSearch
-
Hans v. LouisianaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial