green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
27.4 score
G Cite
cited 5× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 2009 ·
…there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends
at p. 527
✓
cited 3× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1981 ·
(t)here can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends.
✓
cited 3× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1981 ·
…here can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends.
✓
Treatment trajectory · 1907 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1907
1966
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 49 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
McDaniel v. State
(5×)
also: Cited as authority (quoted)
there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Rex, Calvin v. Cia. Pervana De Vapores, S. A. Appeal of Calvin Rex and Cia. Pervana De Vapores, S. A., in No. 80-2335. Rex, Calvin v. Cia. Pervana De Vapores, S. A. Appeal of United States of America, Intervenor, in No. 80-2336
(3×)
(t)here can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Rex v. Cia. Pervana De Vapores, S. A.
(3×)
here can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Miami-Dade County v. Dr. David Fintan Garavan
“The original justification for incorporating the doctrine into American jurisprudence was ‘the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends.’” Id. (quoting Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U.S. 349, 353 (1907)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lavery v. Department of Financial and Professional Regulation
The reasoning behind the sovereign being exempt from suit is that “there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends.” Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U.S. 349, 353 (1907).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tania Almagro v. School Board of Miami-Dade County
It is based “on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends.” Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U.S. 349, 353 (1907).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
ACADEMY FOR POSITIVE LEARNING, INC. v. SCHOOL BOARD OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
The doctrine is steeped in the legal maxim that “the king can do no wrong.” The justification for sovereign immunity is based “on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends.” 13 Kawananokoa v. Polyblank, 205 U.S. 349, 352 (1907).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Springboards v. IDEA Public Schools
Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U.S. 349, 353 (1907) (“A sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that 23 Case: 21-40334 Document: 00516670369 Page: 24 Date Filed: 03/08/2023 Nos. 21-40333 and 21-40334 makes the law on which the right depends.”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Springboards v. McAllen Indep School
Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U.S. 349, 353 (1907) (“A sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that 23 Case: 21-40333 Document: 00516670330 Page: 24 Date Filed: 03/08/2023 Nos. 21-40333 and 21-40334 makes the law on which the right depends.”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Nash v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Catron Cnty. and Belen Consol. Sch. Dist. v. Valencia Cnty.
We Decline to Address the Undeveloped Constitutional Argument {35} A state “has control over property within its limits; the condition of ownership of real estate therein . . . is subject[] . . . to obligations, private or public, and the modes of establishing titles thereto.” Arndt, 134 U.S. at 320-21 . “[T]here can be no legal right . . . against the authority that makes the law on which that right depends.” Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U.S. 349, 353 (1907).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
CITY OF COLLEGE PARK v. CLAYTON COUNTY
See also Roberts, [supra,] 187 Ga. at 694 (1) (“The sovereignty of the State is supreme, and to maintain that sovereignty[,] the supremacy must also be maintained, and to do that the State must never be subjected to suit without its expressed consent.”); Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U. S. 349, 353 ( 27 SCt 526 , 51 LE 834) (1907) (“A sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends.” (Citations omitted)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Government of Guam
Under that immunity, “[a] sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends.” Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U.S. 349, 353 (1907).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
LATHROP v. DEAL, GOVERNOR
See also Roberts, 187 Ga. at 694 (1) (“The sovereignty of the State is supreme, and to maintain that sovereignty[,] the supremacy must also be maintained, and to do that the State must never be subjected to suit without its expressed consent.”); Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U. S. 349, 353 ( 27 SCt 526 , 51 LE 834) (1907) (“A sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the 9 authority that makes the law on which the right depends.” (Citations omitted)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Orlando Salazar v. State
Davis. 96 ohio st. 205. 117 N.E. 229 , 231 B Hilltop Developers v. Holiday Pines Services Corp. 478 So, 2d.368 (Fla2ndDCA1985)..S Joyce v. U.S. 474 2d 215 S Kawananakou v. Polyblank, 205 U.S. 349, 353,275 ,ct.526,527,51,LE.P.834 T Keller vsPE 261 U.S 428, 1 stat. 138-178 P Kolenderv.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community
We have long recognized that in the sovereign’s own courts, “the sover- eign’s power to determine the jurisdiction of its own courts and to define the substantive legal rights of its citizens adequately explains the lesser authority to define its own immunity.” Kiowa, supra, at 760 (Stevens, J., dissenting) (citing Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U. S. 349, 353 (1907)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Texas Department of Transporation v. Zuleima Olivares, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of Pedro Olivares, Jr., and Pedro Olivares, Individually
Holmes held that a “sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends.” Kawananakoa v. Polyblank , 205 U.S. 349, 353 , 27 S. Ct. 526, 527 (1907).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jan Allison Abel v. State
As explained by Justice Holmes, sovereign immunity rests "on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends." Hall , 440 U.S. at 415–16 (quoting Kawananakoa v. Polyblank , 205 U.S. 349, 353 (1907)); see Hosner v. De Young , 1 Tex. 764, 769 (1846).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Morgan
Justice Holmes attempted to explain modern conceptions of sovereign immunity with the logical conclusion that “there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends.” Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U.S. 349, 353 , 27 S.Ct. 526 , 51 L.Ed. 834 *849 (1907).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lombardo v. Comm of PA Welfare
The Supreme Court has described sovereign immunity “as based ‘on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends.’” Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410, 416 (1979) (quoting Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U.S. 349, 353 (1907)). * * * * * For the reasons that follow, we hold that state sovereign immunity is not a unitary concept.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Glenn Martin Greenwell and the City of Texarkana, Arkansas v. April Nicole Brown Davis
As explained by Justice Holmes, sovereign immunity rests "on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends." Hall , 440 U.S. at 415–16 (quoting Kawananakoa v. Polyblank , 205 U.S. 349, 353 (1907)); see Hosner v. De Young , 1 Tex. 764, 769 (1846).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pellegrino v. Rhode Island Ethics Commission
(2×)
“A sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete, theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends.” Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U.S. 349, 353 , 27 S.Ct. 526, 527 , 51 L.Ed. 834, 836 (1907) (Holmes, J.).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board
(2×)
The new Nation's federalist lodestar, dual sovereignty (of State and Nation), demanded modification of the traditional single-sovereign immunity doctrine, thereby permitting Congress to narrow or abolish state sovereign immunity where necessary. *701 (a) Dual sovereignty undercuts the doctrine's traditional "logical and practical" justification, namely (in the words of Justice Holmes), that "there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends." Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U. S. 349, 353 (1907).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc.
(2×)
Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U. S. 349, 353 (1907).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida
(4×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Moreover, I find unsatisfying Justice Holmes' explanation that "[a] sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends." Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U. S. 349, 353 (1907).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mather v. Oklahoma Employment Security Commission (In Re Southern Star Foods, Inc.)
This Court commented, The doctrine owes its conceptual basis in part to the medieval notion that “the King can do no wrong,” 72 AM.JUR.2D (1974) “States” § 99 p. 491, but see Langford v. U.S., 101 U.S. 341 , 25 L.Ed. 1010 (1880), in part to the totalitarian speculations of Hobbes, Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U.S. 349, 353 , 27 S.Ct. 526, 527 , 51 L.Ed. 834, 836 (1907); it is incongruous in a modern constitutional republic where the people are sovereign yet all men are supposedly equal before the law.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Horn
Other judges, taking a more positivist view of law, have suggested that the right to recover against the government cannot exist unless the government itself deigns to create such a right.7 See, e.g., Kawananakoa v. Polybank, 205 U.S. 349, 353 (1907).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Horn
Other judges, taking a _____ more positivist view of law, have suggested that the right to recover against the government cannot exist unless the government itself deigns to create such a right.7 See, e.g., Kawananakoa ___ ____ ___________ v. Polybank, 205 U.S. 349, 353 (1907). ________ Regardless of whether sovereign immunity rests on tradition, reason, or inertia, the doctrine is deeply entrenched in American law.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Defendini Collazo v. Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico
En algunas ocasiones trata de justificar su adopción, e.g., Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U.S. 349, 353 (1907); The Western Maid, 257 U.S. 419 , 432-433 (1922).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Vance
The doctrine owes its conceptual basis in part to the medieval notion that “the King can do no wrong,” 72 AM.JUR.2D (1974) “States” § 99 p. 491, but see Langford v. U.S., 101 U.S. 341 , 25 L.Ed. 1011 (1880), in part to the totalitarian speculations of Hobbes, Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U.S. 349, 353 , 27 S.Ct. 526, 527 , 51 L.Ed. 834, 836 (1907); it is incongruous in a modern constitutional republic where the people are sovereign yet all men are supposedly equal before the law.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Ngiraingas v. Sanchez
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
We have recognized the concept of sovereign immunity "on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends." Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U. S. 349, 353 (1907).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Lucas Goar v. Compania Peruana De Vapores
Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 1907, 205 U.S. 349, 353 , 27 S.Ct. 526, 527 , 51 L.Ed. 834, 836 (Holmes, J.); see also 1 W.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Herilla v. Mayor of Baltimore
The reason that governments are immune from suit by individual citizens was set out by the late Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U. S. 349, 353 , 27 S. Ct. 526, 527 , 51 L.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Foster v. Day & Zimmermann, Inc.
For present purposes it is academic to consider whether this exceptional freedom from legal responsibility rests on the theory that the United Statés is deemed the institutional descendant of the Crown, enjoying its immunity but not its historic prerogatives, cf. Langford v. United States, 101 U.S. 341, 343 [ 25 L.Ed. 1010 ], or on a metaphysical doctrine “that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends.” Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U.S. 349, 353 [ 27 S.Ct. 526, 527 , 51 L.Ed. 834 ], But because the doctrine gives the government a …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Michael T. Foster v. Day & Zimmermann, Inc., and Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Co., Inc., Michael T. Foster v. Day & Zimmermann, Inc., and Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Co., Inc.
For present purposes it is academic to consider whether this exceptional freedom from legal responsibility rests on the theory that the United States is deemed the institutional descendant of the Crown, enjoying its immunity but not its historic prerogatives, cf. Langford v. United States, 101 U.S. 341, 343 ( 25 L.Ed. 1010 ), or on a metaphysical doctrine 'that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends.' Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U.S. 349, 353 ( 27 S.Ct. 526, 527 , 51 L.Ed. 834 ).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Employees of Department of Public Health v. Department of Public Health
(4×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
In a nation whose ultimate sovereign is the people and not government, a doctrine premised upon kingshipor, as has been suggested, "on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends," Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U. S. 349, 353 (1907) is indefensible "if it represents, as the Court has more than once intimated, an unfortunate excrescence of a political and legal order which no longer enlists support. . . ." C.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Pacific American Fisheries v. Territory
As was stated by Mr. Justice Holmes in Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U. S. 349, 355 , 27 S. Ct. 526, 527 ( 51 L.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Honolulu Rapid Transit & Land Co. v. Wilder
Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U. S. 349, 353, 354 .
examined
Cited "see"
Cheyenne-Arapaho Gaming Commission v. National Indian Gaming Commission
(3×)
See Larson, 337 U.S. at 704 , 69 S.Ct. 1457 , Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U.S. 349, 353 , 27 S.Ct. 526 , 51 L.Ed. 834 (1907).
discussed
Cited "see"
Alden v. Maine
(2×)
See Kawananakoa, 205 U. S., at 353, 354 (District of Columbia not immune to private suit, because private rights there are "created and controlled by Congress and not by a legislature of the District").
examined
Cited "see"
John C. Szyka v. United States Secretary of Defense
(3×)
See Holmes, J., in Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U.S. 349, 353 , 27 S.Ct. 526 , 51 L.Ed. 834 (1907); Marshall, J., in Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264 , 410, 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821); Jay, J., in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419, 478 , 1 L.Ed. 440 (1793).
discussed
Cited "see"
Porter v. United States
See Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U.S. 349, 353-54 (1907); Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652, 677-79 , rehearing denied, 325 U.S. 892 (1945); Harris v. Boreham, 233 F. 2d 110, 113-14 (3d Cir. 1956); Alig v. Trust Territory, 3 TTR 603, 609-10, 615 (1967).
examined
Cited "see"
Leo Walton v. Arabian American Oil Company
(3×)
See Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U.S. 349, 353 , 27 S.Ct. 526 , 51 L.Ed. 834 (referring to Hobbes and Bodin), cited in American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 213 U.S. 347, 358 , 29 S.Ct. 511 , 53 L.Ed. 826 ; cf. Jaffe, Book Rev., 66 Harv.L.Rev. (1953) 939, 941 as to the reification of the “notion of power.” 6 .
examined
Cited "see"
Harris v. Municipality of St. Thomas & St. John
(3×)
See Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 1907, 205 U.S. 349, 354 , 27 S. Ct. 526 , 51 L.
cited
Cited "see"
Tiaco v. Forbes
See Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U. S. 349, 354 ; Perez v. Fernandez, 202.
cited
Cited "see"
American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co.
See Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U. S. 349, 353 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lathrop v. Deal
(2×)
See also Roberts, 187 Ga. at 694 (1) (“The sovereignty of the State is supreme, and to maintain that sovereignty[,] the supremacy must also be maintained, and to do that the State must never be subjected to suit without its expressed consent.”) ] Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U. S. 349, 353 ( 27 SCt 526 , 51 LE 834) (1907) (“A sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends.” (Citations omitted)).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
State of Mont. v. Gilham
(3×)
See also, Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U.S. 349, 353 , 27 S.Ct. 526, 527 , 51 L.Ed. 834 (1906).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State ex rel. Evans v. Field
See, also, Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U. S. 349 , 27 Sup. Ct. 526, 51 L.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Kawananakoa
v.
Polyblank
v.
Polyblank
273.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 8, 1907.
Mr. Sidney M. Ballou, for appellants, submitted:, Mr. Aláis B. Browne, with whom Mr. Alexander Britton and Mr. E. A. Douthitt were on the brief, for appellees:
Holmes, Harlan.
Cited by 226 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Third Circuit (6) · Montana Supreme Court (4)
Mr. Justice Holmes
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is an appeal from a decree affirming, a decree of foreclosure and sale under a mortgage executed by the appellants to the appellee, Sister Albertina. 17 Hawaii, 82. The defendants (appellants) pleaded to the jurisdiction that after the execution of the mortgage a part of the mortgaged land had been conveyed by them to one Damon, and by Damon to the Territory of Hawaii, and was now part of a public street. .The bill originally made the Territory a party, but the Territory demurred and the plaintiffs dismissed their, bill as to it before the above plea was argued. Then the plea was overruled, and after answer and hearing the decree of foreclosure was made, the appellants having saved their rights. The decree excepted from the sale the land conveyed to the Territory and directed a judgment for the sum remaining due in case the proceeds of the sale were insufficient to pay the debt. Eq. Rule 92.
The appellants contend that the owners of the equity of redemption in all parts of the mortgage land must be joined, and that ho deficiency judgment should be entered until all the mortgaged premises have been sold. In aid of their contention they argue that the Territory of Hawaii is liable to suit like a municipal corporation, irrespective of the permission given by its statutes, which does not extend to this case. They liken the Territory to the District of Columbia, Metro [*353] politan R. R. Co. v. District of Columbia, 132 U. S. 1, and point out that it has been a party to suits that have been before this court. Damon v. Hawaii, 194 U. S. 154; Carter v. Hawaii, 200 U. S. 255.
The Territory, of course, could waive its exemption, Smith v. Reeves, 178 U. S. 436, and it took no objection to the proceedings in the cases cited if it could have done so. See Act of April 30, 1900, c. 339, § 96; 31 Stat. 141, 160. But in the case at bar it did object, and the question raised is whether the plaintiffs were bound to yield. Some doubts have been expressed as to the source of the immunity of a sovereign power from suit without its own permission, but the answer has been public property since before the days of Hobbes. (Leviathan, c. 26, 2.) A sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends. “Car on pent bien recevoir loy d’autruy, mais il est impossible par nature de se donner loy.” Bodin, Republique, 1, c. 8. Ed. 1629, p. 132. Sir John Eliot, De Jure Maiestatis, c. 3. Nemo suo statuto ligatur necessitate. Baldus., De Leg. et Const., Digna Vox (2d ed., 1496, fol. 51b. Ed. 1539, fol. 61).
As the ground is thus logical and practical, the doctrine is not confined to powers that are sovereign in the full sense of juridical theory, but naturally is extendéd to those that in actual administration originate and change at their will the law of contract and property, from which persons within the jurisdiction derive their rights. A suit presupposes that the defendants are subject to the law invoked. Of course it cannot be maintained unless they are so. But that is not the case with a territory of the United States, because the Territory itself is the fountain from which rights ordinarily flow. It is true that Congress might intervene, just as in the case of a State the Constitution does, and the power that can alter the Constitution might. But the rights that exist are not created by[*354] Congress or the Constitution, except to the extent of certain limitations of power. The District of Columbia is different, because there the body of private rights is created and controlled by Congress and not by a legislature of the District. But for the Territory of Hawaii it is enough to refer to the organic act. Act of April 30, 1900, c. 339, §§6, 55; 31 Stat. 141, 142, 150; Coffield v. Hawaii, 13 Hawaii, 478. See further Territory of Wisconsin v. Doty, 1 Pinney, 396, 405; Langford v. King, 1 Montana, 33; Fisk v. Cuthbert, 2 Montana, 593, 598.
However it might be in a different case, when the inability to join all parties and to sell all the land is due to a conveyance by the mortgagor directly or indirectly to the Territory the court is not thereby deprived of ability to proceed.
Decree affirmed.
Me. Justice Harlan concurs in the result.