BALTZER AND TAAKS
v.
NORTH CAROLINA
BALTZER AND TAAKS
NORTH CAROLINA
161 U.S. 246
Supreme Court of the United States (1896)
Caution
Also reported at: 40 L. Ed. 687 · 16 S. Ct. 502 · 1896 U.S. LEXIS 2159 · SCDB 1895-133
Cited by 45 cases
Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice White delivered the opinion of the court.
The claim presented in this case to the Supreme Court of the State of North Carolina differs somewhat from that relied on iii that court in the case of Hermann R. Baltzer v. The State of North Carolina, No. 93 of the docket of this court. The question of the power in the state court to give the relief, prayed for was by it decided adversely to the plaintiffs in error upon grounds identical with those considered by us in the case just decided. Our reasons for affirmance there expressed are conclusive of the issues here, and consequently the judgment is
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (43 total)
-
Nash v. Fla. Indus. Comm'n & the Stanley Works, 205 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…devoid of power ‘to retard, impede, burden or in any measure control, the operations of the constitutional laws enacted by Congress, to carry into execution the powers vested in the general government.’ In Davis v. Elmira Savings Bank, 161 U.S. 275, 16 S.Ct. 502, 40 L.Ed. 700, decided in 1896, this Court declared that a state law cannot stand that ‘either frustrates the purpose of the national legislation or impairs the efficiency of those agencies-of the Federal Government to discharge the duties for the p…
-
Lynch v. United States, 292 U.S. 571 (U.S. 1934)…States, 7 Wall. 188, 195; Railroad Co. v. Tennessee, 101 U.S. 337; Railroad Co. v. Alabama, 101 U.S. 832; In re Ayers, 123 U.S. 443, 505; Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 17; Baltzer v. North Carolina, 161 U.S. 240; Baltzer & Taaks v. North Carolina, 161 U.S. 246.12 The sovereign’s immunity from suit exists whatever the character of the proceeding or the source of the right sought to be enforced. It applies alike to causes of action arising under acts of Congress, DeGroot v. United States, 5 Wall. 419, 431;…
-
Wacker v. Bisson, 348 F.2d 602 (5th Cir. 1965)…he boundaries of “case or controversy”. The question arises in similar form in habeas corpus review of an extradition hearing when the demanding government intervenes or is joined as a defendant. In Ornelas v. Ruiz, 1896, 161 U.S. 502, 16 S.Ct. 689, 40 L.Ed. 687, only the demanding government’s consul appealed a habeas corpus decision in favor of the extraditee. The Supreme Court said: “[A]s the government he represented was the real party interested in resisting the discharge, the appeal was properly prose…
Previewing 3 of 43 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence