PALMER ET AL.
v.
STATE OF OHIO
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Landowners sued Ohio for damages caused by state flooding of their lands but were barred from suit because the state had not consented to be sued. The Supreme Court held that the right to sue a state derives solely from that state's consent, which is a matter of state law; therefore, Ohio's 1912 constitutional amendment permitting suits "as may be provided by law" did not constitute effective consent without implementing legislation, and the Court lacked jurisdiction to review the state court's interpretation of its own constitution. The Court dismissed the writ of error for want of jurisdiction, affirming the principle that individuals cannot sue states without state consent and that such consent is governed exclusively by state law.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Clarke delivered the opinion of the court.
The plaintiffs in error sued the State of Ohio for damages for flooding lands by elevating the spillway of a state-maintained dam. The Supreme Court of the State affirmed the action of the lower courts in dismissing the petition on the ground that the State had not consented so to be sued, and we are asked to review this decisiop.
The plaintiffs in error agree, as they must, that their suit cannot be maintained without the consent of the State, but" they claim that such consent was given in an amendment to § 16 of Article I of the state constitution, adopted in 1912, which reads:
“Suits may be brought against the State, in such courts and in such manner, as may be provided by law.”
The State Supreme Court held that this amendment is not self-executing, and that the General Assembly of the State having failed to designate the courts and the Planner in which such suits might be brought, effective consent to sue had not been given. This decision, the plaintiffs in error claim, vaguely and indefinitely, somehow deprives them of their property without due process of law, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The right of individuals to sue a State, in either a federal or a state court, cannot be derived from the Constitution or laws of the United States. It can come only from the consent of the State. Beers v. Arkansas, 20 How. 527; Railroad Company v. Tennessee, 101 U. S. 337; Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U. S. 1. Whether Ohio gave the required consent must be determined by the construction to be given to the constitutional amendment quoted, and this is a question of local state law, as to which the decision of the State Supreme Court is controlling with, this court, no federal right being involved.. Elmendorf v. Taylor, 10 Wheat. 152, 159; Old Colony Trust Co. v. Omaha, 230 U. S. 100, 116; Memphis Street Ry. Co. v. Moore, 243 U. S. 299, 301.
The further claim that the plaintiffs in error are deprived of their property without compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, is palpably groundless. Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243, 250; Brown v. New Jersey, 175 U. S. 172, 174.
No federal question being presented by the record, the motion to affirm is denied and this court, sua sponte, .dismisses the writ of error for want of jurisdiction.
Dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (20 total)
-
Williams v. Keyes, 135 Fla. 769 (Fla. 1938)…ion was necessary to the determination of the cause, that it was actually decided or that the judgment as rendered could not-have been so without deciding it. Adams v. Russell, 229 U. S. 353, 33 Sup. Ct. 846; 57 L. Ed. 1224; Palmer v. State of Ohio, 248 U. S. 32, 39 Sup. Ct. 16, 63 L. Ed. 108; Chicago, et al., v. Maucher, 248 U. S. 359, 39 Sup. Ct. 108, 63 L. Ed. 294. We have examined the pleadings, the errors argued, the briefs of counsel, the opinion of this Court, and in none of them do we find a federa…1 / 2
-
Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234 (U.S. 1985)…nd time again, up to the present day. E. g., North Carolina v. Temple, 134 U. S. 22, 30 (1890); Fitts v. McGhee, 172 U. S. 516, 524 (1899); Bell v. Mississippi, 177 U. S. 693 (1900); Smith v. Reeves, 178 [*244] U. S. 436, 446 (1900); Palmer v. Ohio, 248 U. S. 32, 34 (1918); Duhne v. New Jersey, 251 U. S. 311, 313 (1920); Ex parte New York, 256 U. S., at 497; Missouri v. Fiske, 290 U. S. 18, 26 (1933); Great Northern Life Insurance Co. v. Read, 322 U. S. 47, 51 (1944); Ford Motor Co. v. Department of Treasur…
-
Parden v. Terminal Ry. of the Ala. State Docks Dep't, 377 U.S. 184 (U.S. 1964)…the power to waive the State’s immunity; 12 and on cases in this Court to the effect that whether a State has waived its immunity depends upon its intention and is a question of state law [*327] only. Chandler v. Dix, 194 U. S. 590; Palmer v. Ohio, 248 U. S. 32; Ford Motor Co. v. Department of Treasury, 323 U. S. 459, 466-470. We think those cases are inap-posite to the present situation, where the waiver is asserted to arise from the State’s commission of an act to which Congress, in the exercise of its c…
Previewing 3 of 20 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1890)
- Barron v. The Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243 (U.S. 1833)
- Old Colony Tr. Co. v. City of Omaha, 230 U.S. 100 (U.S. 1913)
- Brown v. New Jersey, 175 U.S. 172 (U.S. 1899)
- Elmendorf v. Taylor and others, 10 Wheat. 152 (U.S. 1825)
- Beers v. The State of Ark., 20 How. 527 (U.S. 1857)
- Memphis St. Ry. Co. v. Moore, 243 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1917)
- R.R. Co. v. Tennessee, 101 U.S. 337 (U.S. 1879)