0
When does a state have sovereign immunity against suits brought against them in their own state courts?
Wiki User
∙ 14y ago
The general concept of sovereign immunity is that the king can do no wrong, or the State is not subject to suit in the courts of the State. * It comes from a long line of notions about the state and its relationship to the subjects/people and basically means that the courts will not treat the State the same way as an ordinary litigant. The English Common Law, from which much US law is derived embodies the principles of sovereign immunity. The Eleventh Amendment to the US Constitution limited suits against US States in federal courts. The doctrine has been eroded in recent years by legislation, but enought to make more than a minor diffierence. A very simple answer to the question is " Almost all the time.". * State, as used here, is more than a local geopolitical division; it is every jurisdiction.
Wiki User
∙ 15y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Doctrine of sovereign immunity?
It is the practice of courts giving rights to non-U.S. citizen felons in the judicial system.
What can congress issue to witnesses in congressional courts?
Immunity
What is the term of the judicial system in monarchy?
Yes. courts in a constitutional monarchy work independent of the king/queen but does their work in the name of the sovereign. Courts are usually court "crown courts".
Federal district courts do not try military cases claims brought against the US government or tax disputes between citizens and the government because?
congress created specialized courts to deal with them O.G.'s
Under what circumstances can an American citizen sue the US?
The U.S. cannot be sued by anyone, in any court, for any reason, without its consent. The government may be taken to court only in cases in which congress declares that the United states is open to suit.
What is judicial immunity?
To understand this concept, one must go back to the founding of this nation. We threw off a king and English rule as we were being taxed and not being represented in govt, among other things. We did not accept sovereign or parliament authority in which we had no part. Because of this, the founders to form a representative govt with its authority and limitations set by the people. Remember the people had to approve the Constitution that set that authority and limits. The states and colonists had just fought a war to throw governmental authority and they werent about to give this govt any sovereignty over the will of the people. We gave the President the authority to pardon etc. We gave Congress the power to make law etc. We gave judges the authority to carry out our laws and the Constitutuon as it was written. However, we never gave courts, public officials, judges, congressmen, and all their staffs immunity from our laws and Constitution. Immunity is nowhere to be found in our Constitution as the people did not give it, and in fact did not want anyone to be above t he laws and principals under which it was formed. As the people are the supreme authority in a democracy or republic. Thus as stated in the "Federalist" it is the people that are sovereign not govt. Those people are the only ones that can grant immunity, the power to pardon, or anything else. AND THE PEOPLE NEVER GAVE JUDGES OR ANYONE ELSE IMMUNITY FROM OUR LAWS AND CONSTITUTION. Nor did we give Congress or anyone else the authority to grant immunity to anyone! We didnt give it to prosecutors, courts, judges, congress, etc. And we surely werent bound by any English or foreign laws. Thus immunity claimed by courts and judges has no basis in our country and in fact, doesnt exist. Therefore, Judicial Immunity is a court made immunity and the court has never had authority to make or create it. Judicial Immunity is a sham that has no basis in our law or country. It simply doesnt exist! The people alone can grant immunity not the govt, courts, judges or any instrument of govt> To understand this concept, one must go back to the founding of this nation. We threw off a king and English rule as we were being taxed and not being represented in govt, among other things. We did not accept sovereign or parliament authority in which we had no part. Because of this, the founders to form a representative govt with its authority and limitations set by the people. Remember the people had to approve the Constitution that set that authority and limits. The states and colonists had just fought a war to throw governmental authority and they werent about to give this govt any sovereignty over the will of the people. We gave the President the authority to pardon etc. We gave Congress the power to make law etc. We gave judges the authority to carry out our laws and the Constitutuon as it was written. However, we never gave courts, public officials, judges, congressmen, and all their staffs immunity from our laws and Constitution. Immunity is nowhere to be found in our Constitution as the people did not give it, and in fact did not want anyone to be above t he laws and principals under which it was formed. As the people are the supreme authority in a democracy or republic. Thus as stated in the "Federalist" it is the people that are sovereign not govt. Those people are the only ones that can grant immunity, the power to pardon, or anything else. AND THE PEOPLE NEVER GAVE JUDGES OR ANYONE ELSE IMMUNITY FROM OUR LAWS AND CONSTITUTION. Nor did we give Congress or anyone else the authority to grant immunity to anyone! We didnt give it to prosecutors, courts, judges, congress, etc. And we surely werent bound by any English or foreign laws. Thus immunity claimed by courts and judges has no basis in our country and in fact, doesnt exist. Therefore, Judicial Immunity is a court made immunity and the court has never had authority to make or create it. Judicial Immunity is a sham that has no basis in our law or country. It simply doesnt exist! The people alone can grant immunity not the govt, courts, judges or any instrument of govt> To understand this concept, one must go back to the founding of this nation. We threw off a king and English rule as we were being taxed and not being represented in govt, among other things. We did not accept sovereign or parliament authority in which we had no part. Because of this, the founders to form a representative govt with its authority and limitations set by the people. Remember the people had to approve the Constitution that set that authority and limits. The states and colonists had just fought a war to throw governmental authority and they werent about to give this govt any sovereignty over the will of the people. We gave the President the authority to pardon etc. We gave Congress the power to make law etc. We gave judges the authority to carry out our laws and the Constitutuon as it was written. However, we never gave courts, public officials, judges, congressmen, and all their staffs immunity from our laws and Constitution. Immunity is nowhere to be found in our Constitution as the people did not give it, and in fact did not want anyone to be above t he laws and principals under which it was formed. As the people are the supreme authority in a democracy or republic. Thus as stated in the "Federalist" it is the people that are sovereign not govt. Those people are the only ones that can grant immunity, the power to pardon, or anything else. AND THE PEOPLE NEVER GAVE JUDGES OR ANYONE ELSE IMMUNITY FROM OUR LAWS AND CONSTITUTION. Nor did we give Congress or anyone else the authority to grant immunity to anyone! We didnt give it to prosecutors, courts, judges, congress, etc. And we surely werent bound by any English or foreign laws. Thus immunity claimed by courts and judges has no basis in our country and in fact, doesnt exist. Therefore, Judicial Immunity is a court made immunity and the court has never had authority to make or create it. Judicial Immunity is a sham that has no basis in our law or country. It simply doesnt exist! The people alone can grant immunity not the govt, courts, judges or any instrument of govt>
Does the federal court have jurisdiction to hear FDA cases?
Yes. Federal courts can hear questions of federal law. Since the FDA is a federal agency, actions brought by it or against it will generally be brought in federal court.
Can the US government be brought to trial in the federal courts?
Not as one giant collective suit, and not even one of the three branches can be sued as a seperate entity. However, suits can be brought against the agencies belonging to one of those branches.
What services are provided by the HM courts?
HM Courts stands for Her Majesty's Courts Services and Tribunals. HM courts are where criminals are charged and brought to justice in the United Kingdom.
If your criminal case was dropped can you sue the City Of New York?
No, sorry. The courts have immunity from being sued. Also, the fact that your case was dropped doesn't mean it was originally brought in bad faith, only that prosecutors decided not to bring it to trial for x-reason.
What three reasons contribute to why American courts have supported absolute immunity for judicial legislative and executive duties?
The question states an incorrect premise. There is no absolute immunity protecting members of the Executive Branch.
What court case was presented to the federal district courts?
There have been millions of court cases brought in federal district courts.
