FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   682   683   684   685   686   687   688   689   690   691   692   693   694   695   696   697   698   699   700   701   702   703   704   705   706  
707   708   709   710   711   712   713   714   715   716   717   718   719   720   721   722   723   724   725   726   727   728   729   730   731   >>   >|  
[444] The Court rejected the contention that the doctrine of sovereign immunity should be relaxed as inapplicable to suits for specific relief as distinguished from damage suits, saying: "The Government, as representative of the community as a whole, cannot be stopped in its tracks by any plaintiff who presents a disputed question of property or contract right."[445] CLASSIFICATION OF SUITS AGAINST OFFICERS Suits against officers involving the doctrine of sovereign immunity have been classified by Justice Frankfurter in a dissenting opinion into four general groups. First, there are those cases in which the plaintiff seeks an interest in property which belongs to the Government, or calls "for an assertion of what is unquestionably official authority."[446] Such suits, of course, cannot be maintained.[447] Second, cases in which action adverse to the interests of a plaintiff is taken under an unconstitutional statute or one alleged to be so. In general these suits are maintainable.[448] Third, cases involving injury to a plaintiff because the official has exceeded his statutory authority. In general these suits are also maintainable.[449] Fourth, cases in which an officer seeks immunity behind statutory authority or some other sovereign command for the commission of a common law tort.[450] This category of cases presents the greatest difficulties since these suits can as readily be classified as falling into the first group if the action directly or indirectly is one for specific performance or if the judgment would affect the United States. SUITS AGAINST GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS The multiplication of government corporations during periods of war and depression has provided one motivation for limiting the doctrine of sovereign immunity. In Keifer & Keifer _v._ Reconstruction Finance Corp. and Regional Agricultural Credit Corp.,[451] the Court held that the Government does not become a conduit of its immunity in suits against its agents or instrumentalities merely because they do its work. Nor does the creation of a government corporation confer upon it legal immunity. Whether Congress endows a public corporation with governmental immunity in a specific instance, is a matter of ascertaining the Congressional will. Moreover, it has been held that waivers of governmental immunity in the case of federal instrumentalities and corporations should be construed liberally.[452] On the other hand, Indian nations are exe
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   682   683   684   685   686   687   688   689   690   691   692   693   694   695   696   697   698   699   700   701   702   703   704   705   706  
707   708   709   710   711   712   713   714   715   716   717   718   719   720   721   722   723   724   725   726   727   728   729   730   731   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
immunity
 

plaintiff

 

sovereign

 

general

 

Government

 

authority

 
specific
 

doctrine

 

official

 

corporation


involving
 

classified

 

government

 
statutory
 
corporations
 
maintainable
 

action

 
Keifer
 

instrumentalities

 

governmental


presents

 

property

 

AGAINST

 

multiplication

 

periods

 
motivation
 

limiting

 
provided
 

depression

 

Indian


liberally

 

GOVERNMENT

 

directly

 

falling

 
readily
 

indirectly

 
performance
 

United

 

States

 

construed


affect

 

judgment

 

nations

 
CORPORATIONS
 

federal

 
creation
 
Congressional
 

ascertaining

 
matter
 
instance