Benz v. New York State Thruway Authority
| Decision Date | 19 March 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 234,234 |
| Citation | 82 S.Ct. 674,7 L.Ed.2d 634,369 U.S. 147 |
| Parties | Marie BENZ, Petitioner, v. NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY AUTHORITY |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Lauren D. Rachlin, Buffalo, N.Y., for petitioner.
Julius L. Sackman, Albany, N.Y., for respondent.
We granted certiorari in this case, 368 U.S. 886, 82 S.Ct. 139, 7 L.Ed.2d 86, to decide whether the State of New York could, consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment, assert sovereign immunity in a suit brought by petitioner to reform on grounds of mutual mistake, or to rescind for fraud in the inducement, an agreement fixing compensation for land taken under the power of eminent domain. Contrary to our initial impression of the case on the basis of the petition for certiorari, plenary consideration has satisfied us that the New York Court of Appeals decided no more than that this suit could not be maintained in the Supreme Court of the State of New York because exclusive jurisdiction over litigation of this character had been vested in the New York Court of Claims. The case then involves only a matter relating to 'the distribution of jurisdiction in the state courts,' and presents no substantial federal question. E.g., Honeyman v. Hanan, 302 U.S. 375, 58 S.Ct. 273, 82 L.Ed. 312.
Since the representative of the State Attorney General advised us on oral argument that the Attorney General will recommend passage of a bill by the State Legislature relieving petitioner from the operation of the statute of limitations governing proceedings in the New York Court of Claims,* we assume that she will be free to present her claims in the appropriate state forum.
The writ is dismissed as improvidently granted.
Mr. Justice WHITTAKER took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
* (Reporter's Note: Such a bill became a law on April 29, 1962, N.Y.Laws 1962, c. 940.)
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lanza v. State of New York
...Memphis, 20 Wall. 590, 22 L.Ed. 429, and would warrant dismissing the writ as improvidently granted, Benz v. New York State Thruway Authority, 369 U.S. 147, 82 S.Ct. 674, 7 L.Ed.2d 634; Atchley v. California, 366 U.S. 207, 81 S.Ct. 1051, 6 L.Ed.2d 233, the opinion undertakes, as Mr. Justice......
-
Sanabria v. United States
... ... business is but a single offense, no matter how many state statutes the enterprise violated, and with regard to this ... because counsel had not presented any state-court authority for the proposition that § 17 did not include numbers ... Daily Mirror, Inc. v. New York News, Inc., 533 F.2d 53 (CA2 1976) (per curiam); Jones ... ...
-
Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp. v. Public Utility Dist. No. 2
...Authority, 1961, 9 N.Y.2d 486, 491, 215 N.Y.S.2d 47, 49-50, 174 N.E.2d 727, 729 (dissenting opinion), cert. dismissed, 1962, 369 U.S. 147, 82 S.Ct. 674, 7 L.Ed. 2d 634. So too, under Section 684 of the New York Civil Practice Act, with certain limitations, a New York governmental body must ......
-
Trippe v. Port of New York Authority
...28, 135 N.E.2d 572; Benz v. New York State Thruway Auth., 9 N.Y.2d 486, 215 N.Y.S.2d 47, 174 N.E.2d 727, cert. dsmd. 369 U.S. 147, 82 S.Ct. 674, 7 L.Ed.2d 634). There is of course a prohibition in our State Constitution (art. 1, § 7) against the taking of private property for public use wit......