EX PARTE JUAN MADRAZZO

U.S. | 1833-01-01
7 Pet. 627 Supreme Court of the United States (1833) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 8 L. Ed. 808 · 1833 U.S. LEXIS 366 · SCDB 1833-022
Cited by 19 cases

Opinion of the Court
Mr Chief Justice Marshall

Mr Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the Court.

The case is not a case where the property is in custody of a court of admiralty, or brought within its jurisdiction, and in the posséssion of any private person. It is not, therefore, one for the exercise of that jurisdiction. It is a mere personal suit against a state to recover proceeds in its possession, and in süch a case no private person has a right to commence an original suit in this court against a state.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By (11 total)

  • Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234 (U.S. 1985)
    …a State was ultimately rejected by the Court as a ground to expand state sovereign immunity in federal court. See supra, at 270, n. 21. In 1833, the Court dismissed an original action brought by Madrazzo based on the same claim. Ex -parte Madrazzo, 7 Pet. 627 (1833). The Court’s one-paragraph opinion apparently dismissed the case on Eleventh Amendment grounds because it “is a mere personal suit against a state to recover proceeds in its possession.” Id., at 632. This was the only case dismissed by the Su…
  • United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 (U.S. 1882)
    …ough not brought against the State by name, but against the Governor in his official capacity, was a suit against the State, and therefore, by reason of the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution, could not be maintained. See also Ex parte Madrazzo, 7 Pet. 627. In the case, on which the plaintiff principally relies, of Meigs v. M'Clung, 9 Cranch, 11, in which a Circuit Court of the United States, and this court on writ of error, gave judgment for the plaintiff in an action of ejectment for land held by t…
  • …court and not of the district court in which it was brought; and it was held, further, that the decree could not be sustained as a proceeding in rem, because the thing was not in possession' of the district court. Subsequently, in Ex parte Madrazzo, 7 Pet. 627, . 632, an application was made to this court to entertain a suit in admiralty against the State of Georgia,, and it was held that as there was no property in the custody of the court of admiralty, or brought within its jurisdiction and in the posse…

Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw