SILER ET AL., AS RAILROAD COMMISSION,

v.

ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY; SAME V. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY IN KENTUCKY; SAME V. CINCINNATI, NEW ORLEANS AND TEXAS PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY

Citator

Cited By (83 total)

• Hampton v. State Bd. of Educ. of Fla., 90 Fla. 88 (Fla. 1925)
  …09; Hagood v. Southern, 117 U. S. 52, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 608; Smith v. Reeves, 178 U. S. 436, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 919; Ex Parte New York, 256 U. S. 490, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 588; Dispensary Commission of South Carolina v. Wilson Distilling Co., 213 U. S. 151, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 458; 26 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law (2nd ed.) 491. The State was not the actor in claiming a litigated fund, as in Clark v. Barnard, 108 U. S. 436, 2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 878. Nor were the defendant State officers authorized to represent and bind the State by waiver…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Hill v. Dep't OF Corr., 513 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 1987)
  …e stated “by the most express language or by such overwhelming implications from the text as [will] leave no room for any other reasonable construction.” 415 U.S. at 673, 94 S.Ct. at 1360 (quoting Murray v. Wilson Distilling Co., 213 U.S. 151, 171, 29 S.Ct. 458, 464, 53 L.Ed. 742 (1909). With this background, we then consider whether a civil rights suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 can be brought against the state and one of its agencies in a Florida court. Hill correctly points out that the eleventh amendment…
• Williams v. Bennett, 689 F.2d 1370 (11th Cir. 1982)
  …“by the most express language or by such overwhelming implications from the text as [will] leave no room for any other reasonable construction.” Edelman, 415 U.S. at 673, 94 S.Ct. at 1360 (quoting Murray v. Wilson Distilling Co., 213 U.S. 151, 171, 29 S.Ct. 458, 464, 53 L.Ed. 742 (1909).); accord Florida Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. Florida Nursing Home Association, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 1034, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981). In evaluating the statute for evidence of waiver, we th…