133 U.S. 529 (1890), Lincoln County v. Luning
| Citation | 133 U.S. 529, 10 S.Ct. 363, 33 L.Ed. 766 |
| Party Name | LINCOLN COUNTY v. LUNING. [1] SAME v. SUTRO. SAME v. VINCENT. |
| Case Date | March 03, 1890 |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
Page 529
COUNSEL
[10 S.Ct. 363] H. F. Bartine, for plaintiff in error.
A. C. Freeman, for defendant in error.
OPINION
BREWER, J.
This is an action on bonds and coupons. Judgment was rendered against the county, and it alleges error. The primary
Page 530
question is as to the jurisdiction of the circuit court. This jurisdiction is challenged on two grounds: First, it is claimed that, because the county is an integral part of the state, it could not, under the eleventh amendment of the federal constitution, be sued in the circuit court; and, secondly, inasmuch as the act under which the bonds were issued provided for litigation concerning the same, and named a court of the state in which such litigation could be had, that such jurisdiction was exclusive, and prevented suit in the circuit court.
With regard to the first objection, it may be observed that the records of this court, for the last 30 years, are full of suits against counties; and it would seem as though by general consent the jurisdiction of the federal courts in such suits had become established. But, irrespective of this general acquiescence, the jurisdiction of the circuit courts is beyond question. The eleventh amendment limits the jurisdiction only as to suits against a state. It was said by Chief Justice MARSHALL, in Osborn v. Bank, 9 Wheat. 738, 857, that 'the eleventh amendment, which restrains the jurisdiction granted by the constitution over suits against states, is of necessity limited to those suits in which the state is a party on the record.' While that statement was held by this court in the case of In re Ayers, 123 U.S. 433, 8 S.Ct. 164, to be too narrow, yet, by that decision the jurisdiction was limited only in respect to those cases in which the state is a real, if not a nominal, defendant; and while the county is territorially a part of the state, yet politically it is also a corporation created by, and with such powers as are given to it by, the state. In this respect, it is a part of the state only in that remote sense in which any city, town, or other municipal corporation may be said to be a part of the state. Railroad Co. v. District of Columbia, 132 U.S. 1, ante, 19.
The constitution of the state of Nevada explicitly provides for the liability of counties to suit. Article 8 is entitled 'Municipal and Other Corporations,' and its 10 sections contain provisions, some applicable to private, and others to both
Page 531
private and municipal, corporations. Section 5 declares that 'corporations may sue and be sued in all courts in like manner as individuals;' and that this section is not to be limited to private corporations is evident, not alone from the generality of its language, [10 S.Ct. 364] and from the title of the article, but also from several sections therein in which municipal corporations are expressly I amed. Thus the second section subjects the property of corporations to taxation, with a proviso 'that the property of corporations formed for municipal * * * purposes may be exempted by law;' and section 10 expressly recognizes the county as a municipal corporation; for its language is 'no county, city, town, or other municipal corporation shall become a stockholder,' etc. Thus the liability of counties as municipal corporations to suit is declared by the constitution itself. Further, the act under which these bonds were issued provided for suits against the county in respect to this indebtedness in one of the courts of the state; and this liability of a county to suit...
To continue reading
FREE SIGN UP
-
241 B.R. 862 (Bkrtcy.N.D.Ohio 1999), 98-3134, In re Pitts
...900; Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Ed. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 97 S.Ct. 568, 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977); Lincoln County v. Luning, 133 U.S. 529, 530, 10 S.Ct. 363, 364, 33 L.Ed. 766 (1890). For example, it is clear that a state taxing authority is afforded the protections contained i......
-
142 B.R. 670 (Bkrtcy.D.N.J. 1990), 90-1107, In re Decalcomania Mfg. Corp.
...Co. v. Dept. of Treasury, supra, but does not extend to counties and similar municipal corporations." See Lincoln County v. Luning, 133 U.S. 529, 530, 10 S.Ct. 363 [363], 33 L.Ed. 766 (1890); Moor v. County of Alameda, 411 U.S. 693, 717-721, 93 S.Ct. 1785, 1799-1801, 36 L.Ed.2d 596 Mt.......
-
206 B.R. 831 (Bkrtcy.E.D.Va. 1997), 92-11704, In re NVR L.P.
...and boroughs, cannot invoke their parent state's constitutional immunity from suit in federal court. See Lincoln County v. Luning, 133 U.S. 529, 530, 10 S.Ct. 363, 363, 33 L.Ed. 766 (1890); see also Lake Country Estates, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency, 440 U.S. 391, 400-01, 99 S.Ct. 11......
-
146 B.R. 702 (Bkrtcy.S.D.Tex. 1992), 92-4232, In re Great Western Coal, Inc.
...Moor v. County of Alameda, 411 U.S. 693, 717-721, 93 S.Ct. 1785, 1799-1802, 36 L.Ed.2d 596, 614-16 (1973); Lincoln County v. Luning, 133 U.S. 529, 530, 10 S.Ct. 363, 364, 33 L.Ed. 766, 767 (1890). Moreover, there is specific authority holding the Eleventh Amendment inapplicable to the count......
-
241 B.R. 862 (Bkrtcy.N.D.Ohio 1999), 98-3134, In re Pitts
...900; Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Ed. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 97 S.Ct. 568, 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977); Lincoln County v. Luning, 133 U.S. 529, 530, 10 S.Ct. 363, 364, 33 L.Ed. 766 (1890). For example, it is clear that a state taxing authority is afforded the protections contained i......
-
142 B.R. 670 (Bkrtcy.D.N.J. 1990), 90-1107, In re Decalcomania Mfg. Corp.
...Co. v. Dept. of Treasury, supra, but does not extend to counties and similar municipal corporations." See Lincoln County v. Luning, 133 U.S. 529, 530, 10 S.Ct. 363 [363], 33 L.Ed. 766 (1890); Moor v. County of Alameda, 411 U.S. 693, 717-721, 93 S.Ct. 1785, 1799-1801, 36 L.Ed.2d 596 Mt.......
-
206 B.R. 831 (Bkrtcy.E.D.Va. 1997), 92-11704, In re NVR L.P.
...and boroughs, cannot invoke their parent state's constitutional immunity from suit in federal court. See Lincoln County v. Luning, 133 U.S. 529, 530, 10 S.Ct. 363, 363, 33 L.Ed. 766 (1890); see also Lake Country Estates, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency, 440 U.S. 391, 400-01, 99 S.Ct. 11......
-
146 B.R. 702 (Bkrtcy.S.D.Tex. 1992), 92-4232, In re Great Western Coal, Inc.
...Moor v. County of Alameda, 411 U.S. 693, 717-721, 93 S.Ct. 1785, 1799-1802, 36 L.Ed.2d 596, 614-16 (1973); Lincoln County v. Luning, 133 U.S. 529, 530, 10 S.Ct. 363, 364, 33 L.Ed. 766, 767 (1890). Moreover, there is specific authority holding the Eleventh Amendment inapplicable to the count......
-
Copyrights and state sovereignty: U.S. Supreme Court removes monetary damages for state actor infringement
...to the state (and those acting on behalf of the state) but do not extend to political subdivisions of the state. Lincoln County v. Luning, 10 S.Ct. 363, 530 (1890) (holding that counties, cities, towns or other municipal corporations created by a state do not enjoy the protection of soverei......
-
The Alden Trilogy: praise and protest.
...corporations and similar governmental entities are [[sections] 1983] `persons'"). (239.) See Lincoln County v. Luning, 133 U.S. 529, 530 (1890) (holding that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar a federal suit to collect debt against a (240.) See Workman v. New York, 179 U.S. 552, 563-6......
-
Its hour come round at last? State sovereign immunity and the great state debt crisis of the early twenty-first century.
...question suit by a citizen of the defendant state). (39.) See Shapiro, supra note 16, at 70. (40.) ORTH, supra note 7, at 55. (41.) 133 U.S. 529 (1890). (42.) ORTH, supra note 7, at 111. (43.) Id. at 118. (44.) Id. (45.) See, e.g., Edward A. Purcell, Jr., The Particularly Dubious Case of Ha......
-
The plenary power of states to infringe intellectual property under the cloak of sovereign immunity.
...process or the product of a particular manufacturer or manufacturers is selected by such person or such person's agent." Id. (198.) 133 U.S. 529 (1890). "The Eleventh Amendment limits the jurisdiction only as to suits against a state [and] 'is of necessity limited to those suits i......
-
Religious liberty after Gonzales: a look at state RFRAS.
...Sch. Dist. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977) (school boards); Workman v. New York, 179 U.S. 552 (1900) (cities); Lincoln County v. Luning, 133 U.S. 529 (1890) (counties). (108.) See, e.g., Merced v. Kasson, 577 F.3d 578 (5tb Cir. 2009) (ordering injunctive relief against municipal officials pur......