 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Ex parte Young, No. 10, Original,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, March 23, 1908
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner filed a writ of habeas corpus to contest the lower court's order punishing him for contempt. The lower court, a federal equity court, enjoined petitioner from enforcing certain railroad acts that set rates for freight and passengers. Petitioner contended that the lower court did not have jurisdiction to enjoin him. The Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the circuit court had jurisdiction because the case involved the decision of federal questions arising under the Constitution of the United States. The Court found that the Acts were unconstitutional because their provisions imposed stiff penalties on railroad companies that were unsuccessful in trying to test the validity of the laws. The Eleventh Amendment was not violated by allowing the lower court to enjoin an officer of the state who was enforcing a law that was in violation of the federal constitution. Such action did not constitute an action against the state. Petitioner had a duty to enforce the laws of the state, and the injunction was against him, not the state.
|
|||||
| Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Mottley, No. 37.,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, November 16, 1908, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant, a railroad company, entered into a contract with appellees, a married couple, to give them travel passes every year. When a new federal law prohibited railroads from issuing free passes, appellant declined to renew the passes. Appellees sued in federal court for specific performance of the contract, and the circuit court granted an injunction. The Supreme Court of the United States, finding it improper to plead that a defense under federal law was anticipated, reversed the judgment and remanded to the circuit court with instructions to dismiss the action for lack of federal question jurisdiction.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Contact Us |
| Copyright® 2009 LexisNexis , a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
