Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The act of state doctrine entered into American jurisprudence in the case Underhill v.Hernandez, 168 U.S. 250 (1897). [5] In an 1892 revolution, General José Manuel "Mocho" Hernández expelled the existing Venezuelan government and took control of Ciudad Bolívar, where plaintiff Underhill lived and ran a waterworks system for the city.
The adequate and independent state ground doctrine states that when a litigant petitions the U.S. Supreme Court to review the judgment of a state court which rests upon both federal and non-federal (state) law, the U.S. Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction over the case if the state ground is (1) “adequate” to support the judgment, and ...
Southern states had a long tradition of using states' rights doctrine since the late eighteenth century to support slavery. [16] A major Southern argument in the 1850s was that federal law to ban the expansion of slavery into the territories discriminated against states that allowed slavery, making them second-class states.
In United States constitutional law, state action is an action by a person who is acting on behalf of a governmental body, and is therefore subject to limitations imposed on government by the United States Constitution, including the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, which prohibit the federal and state governments from violating certain rights and freedoms.
[6] Because the doctrine touches on many different principles, it is regarded as "one of the more confusing doctrines evoked in cases touching upon the interests of foreign states." [7] The principle of comity has been questioned and even rejected by many scholars throughout the years; however, the use of the term remains present in case law. [8]
The United States as a sovereign is immune from suit unless it unequivocally consents to being sued. [54] The United States Supreme Court in Price v. United States observed: "It is an axiom of our jurisprudence. The government is not liable to suit unless it consents thereto, and its liability in suit cannot be extended beyond the plain ...
The independent state legislature theory or independent state legislature doctrine (ISL) is a judicially rejected legal theory that posits that the Constitution of the United States delegates authority to regulate federal elections within a state to that state's elected lawmakers without any checks and balances from state constitutions, state courts, governors, ballot initiatives, or other ...
Confounding the definition problem is that "state" and "government" are often used as synonyms in common conversation and even some academic discourse. According to this definition schema, the states are nonphysical persons of international law, governments are organizations of people. [39]