Benz v. New York State Thruway Authority

Supreme Court

Benz v. New York State Thruway Authority

369 U.S. 147, 82 S. Ct. 674, 7 L. Ed. 2d 634, 1962 U.S. LEXIS 1601

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedMarch 19, 1962

Docket234

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 369 U.S. 147 (Benz v. New York State Thruway Authority) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Benz v. New York State Thruway Authority, 369 U.S. 147, 82 S. Ct. 674, 7 L. Ed. 2d 634, 1962 U.S. LEXIS 1601 (1962).

Pincite

Opinion

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.

*148 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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.

*148 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

369 U.S. 147, 82 S. Ct. 674, 7 L. Ed. 2d 634, 1962 U.S. LEXIS 1601, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benz-v-new-york-state-thruway-authority-scotus-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack