FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   1040   1041   1042   1043   1044   1045   1046   1047   1048   1049   1050   1051   1052   1053   1054   1055   1056   1057   1058   1059   1060   1061   1062   1063   1064  
1065   1066   1067   1068   1069   1070   1071   1072   1073   1074   1075   1076   1077   1078   1079   1080   1081   1082   1083   1084   1085   1086   1087   1088   1089   >>   >|  
a State from suit does not extend to actions against State officials for damages arising out of willful and negligent disregard of State laws.[43] Suits to Recover Taxes Recent decisions, however, have rendered suits against State officials to recover taxes increasingly difficult to maintain. Although the Court long ago held that the sovereign immunity of the State prevented a suit to recover money in the general treasury,[44] it also held that a suit would lie against a revenue officer to recover tax moneys illegally collected and still in his possession.[45] Beginning, however, with Great Northern Life Insurance Co. _v._ Read[46] in 1944 the Court has held that this kind of suit cannot be maintained unless the State expressly consents to suits in the federal courts. In this case the State statute provided for the payment of taxes under protest and for suits afterwards against State tax collection officials for the recovery of taxes illegally collected. The act also provided for the segregation by the collector of taxes paid under protest. The Read Case has been followed in two more recent cases[47] involving a similar state of facts, with the result that the rule once permitting such suits to recover taxes from a segregated fund has been distinguished away. Consent of State to be Sued Although _dicta_ in some cases suggested that once a State consented generally to be sued in a court of competent jurisdiction,[48] suits could be maintained against it in the federal courts, later decisions involving statutory provisions for the payment of taxes under protest followed by a suit in a court of competent jurisdiction to recover do not authorize suits in the federal courts. These rulings are based on the assumption that when the court is dealing "with the sovereign exemption from judicial interference in the vital field of financial administration a clear declaration of the State's intention to submit its fiscal problems to other courts than those of its own creation must be found."[49] Long before these decisions it had been settled that a State could confine to its own courts suits against it to recover taxes.[50] Thus the questions involved in the cases laying down the above rule concerned only the lack of an express consent to suit in the federal courts. Waiver of Immunity The immunity of a State from suit is a privilege which it may waive at pleasure by voluntary submission to suit,[51] as distinguis
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   1040   1041   1042   1043   1044   1045   1046   1047   1048   1049   1050   1051   1052   1053   1054   1055   1056   1057   1058   1059   1060   1061   1062   1063   1064  
1065   1066   1067   1068   1069   1070   1071   1072   1073   1074   1075   1076   1077   1078   1079   1080   1081   1082   1083   1084   1085   1086   1087   1088   1089   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

recover

 

courts

 
federal
 

protest

 

decisions

 

officials

 

collected

 
immunity
 

sovereign

 

provided


payment

 

illegally

 

Although

 

involving

 
jurisdiction
 

maintained

 

competent

 

administration

 

interference

 

financial


statutory

 

provisions

 
suggested
 
consented
 
generally
 

authorize

 
dealing
 

exemption

 
assumption
 
rulings

judicial
 

express

 
consent
 
Waiver
 

Immunity

 

concerned

 
privilege
 
submission
 

distinguis

 
voluntary

pleasure

 

laying

 

involved

 

creation

 

problems

 

intention

 
submit
 

fiscal

 
confine
 

questions