Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Since it now appears that this case presents no substantial federal question, the writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.
Reported below: 9 N. Y. 2d 486, 174 N. E. 2d 727.
Lauren D. Rachlin argued the cause and filed briefs for petitioner.
Julius L. Sackman argued the cause for respondent. With him on the briefs were Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General of New York, and Paxton Blair, Solicitor General.
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 . [369 U.S. 147, 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.
[ Footnote * ] REPORTER'S NOTE: Such a bill became a law on April 29, 1962, N. Y. Laws 1962, c. 940.] [369 U.S. 147, 149]
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Citation: 369 U.S. 147
Docket No: No. 234
Decided: March 19, 1962
Court: United States Supreme Court
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)