Citation network
Ex Parte Young
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 23, 1908
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
-
and which it is our duty, to decide. Under these circumstances, the language of Chief Justice Marshall in Cohen v. VirginiaSearch
-
Co. v. LosSearch
-
involve a question of fact, its solution, nevertheless, is one which raises a Federal question. See Hastings v. AmesSearch
-
R.R. Co. v. MinnesotaSearch
-
Reagan v. Farmers'Search
-
Co. v. GillSearch
-
Co. v. SandfordSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Railway Co. v. TompkinsSearch
-
denial of any hearing to the company. The observations upon a similar question, made by Mr. Justice Brewer in Cotting v. KansasSearch
-
or employees of the company, the risk of imprisonment for years as a common felon. See also Mercantile Trust Co. v. TexasSearch
-
Ry. Co. v. McChordSearch
-
Consolidated Gas Co. v. MayerSearch
-
Fed.Rep. 150-153. In McGahey v. VirginiaSearch
-
give none at all, the law is invalid, although what is termed a remedy is in fact given. See also Bronson v. KinzieSearch
-
Railway Co. v. MinnesotaSearch
-
brought against a State by one of its own citizens, as well as to a suit brought by a citizen of another State. Hans v. LouisianaSearch
-
U. S. 1 . It was adopted after the decision of this court in Chisholm v. GeorgiaSearch
-
time, there have been many cases decided in this court involving the Eleventh Amendment, among them being Osborn v. UnitedSearch
-
only to those suits in which the State was a party on the record. In the subsequent case of Governor of Georgia v. MadrazoSearch
-
holding was somewhat enlarged, and Chief Justice Marshall, delivering the opinion of the court, while citing Osborn v. UnitedSearch
-
as the party on the record (page 26 U. S. 123 ), and therefore the suit could not be maintained. Davis v. GraySearch
-
Wall. 203, 83 U. S. 220 , reiterates the rule of Osborn v. UnitedSearch
-
or a statute of the United States when such execution will violate the rights of the complainant. In Poindexter v. GreenhowSearch
-
for nonpayment of his taxes was a suit against him personally, as a wrongdoer, and not against the State. Hagood v. SouthernSearch
-
contract of the State, was a suit against the State (page 123 U. S. 504 ), following in this respect Hagood v. SouthernSearch
-
and a decree in favor of plaintiff would affect the treasury of the State. On the other hand, United States v. LeeSearch
-
United States, although the individual in possession justified such possession under its authority. See also Tindal v. WesleySearch
-
U. S. 204 , to the same effect. In Pennoyer v. McConnaughySearch
-
contract with the State, and thereby working irreparable damage to the property rights of the complainants. Osborn v. UnitedSearch
-
But the general doctrine of Osborn v. UnitedSearch
-
The same principle is decided in Scott v. DonaldSearch
-
such as is set forth in some of the foregoing cases, has received attention of the rate cases, so-called. Reagan v. Farmers'Search
-
v. Mason City Company, 199 U. S. 160 , 199 U. S. 166 . In Smyth v. AmesSearch
-
plaintiff's right. Page 169 U. S. 518 . Page 209 U. S. 155 This decision was reaffirmed in Prout v. StarrSearch
-
Rwy. Co. v. MissouriSearch
-
State is not a party to a suit simply because the state railroad commission is such party. The doctrine of Smyth v. AmesSearch
-
is also referred to and reiterated in Gunter, Attorney General v. AtlanticSearch
-
Railroad Co., 200 U. S. 273 , 200 U. S. 283 . See also McNeill v. SouthernSearch
-
Mississippi Railroad Commission v. IllinoisSearch
-
Constitution, may be enjoined by a Federal court of equity from such action. It is objected, however, that Fitts v. McGheeSearch
-
as to the Attorney General on that ground. We do not think such contention is well founded. The doctrine of Smyth v. AmesSearch
-
action. In that case, the court can direct the defendant to perform this merely ministerial duty. Board of Liquidation v. McCombSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial