BENZ
v.
NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY AUTHORITY
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.
The Supreme Court dismissed a petition for certiorari in a case where a property owner sought to reform or rescind an eminent domain compensation agreement with the New York State Thruway Authority on grounds of mutual mistake or fraud. The Court determined that the New York Court of Appeals had decided only a procedural matter concerning the distribution of jurisdiction between state courts—relegating the claim to the Court of Claims rather than the Supreme Court—which presented no substantial federal constitutional question warranting Supreme Court review.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam.
We granted certiorari in this case, 368 U. S. 886, to decide whether the State of New York could, consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment, assert sovereign immunity in a suit brought by petitioner to reform on grounds of mutual mistake, or to rescind for fraud in the inducement, an agreement fixing compensation for land taken under the power of eminent domain. Contrary to our initial impression of the case on the basis of the petition for certiorari, plenary consideration has satisfied us that the New York Court of Appeals decided no more than that this suit could not be maintained in the Supreme Court of the State of New York because exclusive jurisdiction over litigation of this character had been vested in the New York Court of Claims. The case then involves only a matter relating to “the distribution of jurisdiction in the state courts,” and presents no substantial federal question. E. g., Honeyman v. Hanan, 302 U. S. 375. Since the representative of the State Attorney General advised us on oral argument that the Attorney General will recommend passage of a bill by the State Legislature relieving petitioner from the operation of the statute of limitations governing proceedings in the New York Court of Claims, [*] ? we assume that she will be free to present her claims in the appropriate state forum.
The writ is dismissed as improvidently granted.
Mr. Justice Black dissents.
Mr. Justice Whittaker took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lanza v. New York, 370 U.S. 139 (U.S. 1962)…, Herb v. Pitcairn, 324 U. S. 117; Enterprise Irrigation District v. Farmers Mutual Canal Co., 243 U. S. 157; Murdock v. Memphis, 20 Wall. 590, and would warrant dismissing the writ as improvidently granted, Benz v. New York State Thruway Authority, 369 U. S. 147; Atchley v. California, 366 U. S. 207, the opinion undertakes, as Mr. Justice Brennan characterizes it, a “gratuitous exposition” upon those more difficult constitutional problems originally thought presented for decision. These expressions of dicta…1 / 2
-
Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp. v. Pub. Util. Dist. NO. 2 OF Grant Cnty., 319 F.2d 94 (2d Cir. 1963)…eorge, 1914, 233 U.S. 354, 34 S.Ct. 587, 58 L.Ed. 997.4 Petition for rehearing denied. . New York Court of Claims Act, § 8; Benz v. New York State Thruway Authority, 1961, 9 N.Y.2d 486, 490, 215 N.Y.S.2d 47, 174 N.E. 2d 727, cert. dismissed, 1962, 369 U.S. 147, 82 S.Ct. 674, 7 L.Ed. 2d 634; Matter of New York Post Corp. v. Moses, 1961, 10 N.Y.2d 199, 203, 219 N.Y.S.2d 7, 176 N.E. 2d 709; Matter of Brown v. Board of Trustees of Town of Hamptonburg, School District No. 4, 1952, 303 N.Y. 484, 488, 104 N.E. 2…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Honeyman v. Hanan, 302 U.S. 375 (U.S. 1937)
- Metlakatla Indian Community v. Egan, 368 U.S. 886 (U.S. 1961)
- Benz v. N.Y. State Thruway Auth., 368 U.S. 886 (U.S. 1961)