Opinion ID: 104700
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: A. Plaintiff sought interest in property which concededly belonged to the Government, or demanded relief calling for an assertion of what was unquestionably official authority. Governor of Georgia v. Madrazo, 1 Pet. 110 (1828); Louisiana v. Jumel, 107 U.S. 711; Cunningham v. Macon & Brunswick R. Co., 109 U.S. 446; Hagood v. Southern, 117 U.S. 52; Christian v. Atlantic & N.C.R. Co., 133 U.S. 233; North Carolina v. Temple, 134 U.S. 22; New York Guaranty & Indemnity Co. v. Steele, 134 U.S. 230; Belknap v. Schild, 161 U.S. 10; Oregon v. Hitchcock, 202 U.S. 60; Louisiana v. Garfield, 211 U.S. 70; Murray v. Wilson Co., 213 U.S. 151; Hopkins v. Clemson Agricultural College, 221 U.S. 636; Goldberg v. Daniels, 231 U.S. 218; Louisiana v. McAdoo, 234 U.S. 627; Lankford v. Platte Iron Works, 235 U.S. 461; Wells v. Roper, 246 U.S. 335; Morrison v. Work, 266 U.S. 481; Minnesota v. United States, 305 U.S. 382. B. Decisions couched in terms of sovereign immunity or later so interpreted but which actually turned on other considerations. 1. No legally protected interest of the plaintiff was affected. Louisiana v. McAdoo, 234 U.S. 627; Tennessee Electric Power Co. v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 306 U.S. 118. 2. The particular defendant was unrelated to the plaintiff's claim because he was not threatening plaintiff's interest. In re Ayers, 123 U.S. 443; Fitts v. McGhee, 172 U.S. 516; Worcester County Trust Co. v. Riley, 302 U.S. 292; Mine Safety Appliances Co. v. Forrestal, 326 U.S. 371 (alternative reason). 3. Nature of the adjudication required presence of the sovereign as a necessary party. Christian v. Atlantic & North Carolina R. Co., 133 U.S. 233; Stanley v. Schwalby, 162 U.S. 255; New Mexico v. Lane, 243 U.S. 52. 4. Case dismissed for want of ordinary requirements of equity jurisdiction. Hawks v. Hamill, 288 U.S. 52; Morrison v. Work, 266 U.S. 481 (alternative ground). C. Cases in which legislation specifically provided that only the sovereign itself could be sued for action authorized by statute. Crozier v. Fried, Krupp Aktiengesellschaft, 224 U.S. 290; Richmond Screw Anchor Co. v. United States, 275 U.S. 331. D. Cases in which the plaintiff pursued a statutory procedure indicating consent to suit against the sovereign and is therefore bound by its limitations. Smith v. Reeves, 178 U.S. 436; Great Northern Life Ins. Co. v. Read, 322 U.S. 47; Ford Motor Co. v. Department of Treasury of Indiana, 323 U.S. 459; Kennecott Copper Corp. v. State Tax Comm'n, 327 U.S. 573.