ELIZA BROWN, APPELLANT

v.

FRANCES SWANN AND OTHERS

Citator

Cited By (13 total)

• United States v. Turner, 47 F.2d 86 (8th Cir. 1931)
  …not subject to suit without its consent; its consent is expressed only by a statute permitting suits against it; and the courts cannot go beyond the letter of such consent, where such consent has been expressed. United States v. Clarke, 8 Pet. 436, 8 L. Ed. 1001; Schillinger v. United States, 155 U. S. 163, 15 S. Ct. 85, 39 L. Ed. 108; Nassau Smelting Works v. United States, 266 U. S. 101, 45 S. Ct. 25, 69 L. Ed. 190; Morrison v. Work, 266 U. S. 481, 45 S. Ct. 149, 69 L. Ed. 394. Any claim of jurisdiction…
• Williams v. The United States Fed. Aviation Admin., 711 F.2d 893 (9th Cir. 1983)
  …the SAA. The district court ruled that the SAA provided the exclusive basis for jurisdiction. Suits against the sovereign require pleading a statute whereby the United States consents to be sued. United States v. Clarke, 33 (8 Pet.) U.S. 436, 443, 8 L.Ed. 1001 (1900). Although the FTCA usually provides that waiver in tort actions, the FTCA is inapplicable where an admiralty claim exists. 28 U.S.C. § 2680(d). Admiralty claims against the United States are cognizable solely under two statutes, the Suits in…
• Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Johnson Shipyards Corp., 6 F.2d 752 (2d Cir. 1925)
  …gainst the king, even in a civil action. 1 Blaekstone’s Com. 242. The same principle exists as respects the bringing of actions against the United States, where no act of Congress has provided otherwise. In United States v. Clarke, 8 Pet. 436, 444, 8 L. Ed. 1001, Chief Justice Marshall, in 1834, said: “As the United States are not suable of common right, the party who institutes such suit must bring his ease within the authority of some ’act of Congress, or the court cannot exercise jurisdiction over it.”…