Palmer v. Ohio, 248 U.S. 32 (1918). · Go Syfert
Search
Palmer v. Ohio, 248 U.S. 32 (1918). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
183 citation events (37 in the last 25 years) across 35 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Joshua Harrell v. Andrew Coop, et al. (mdd, 2026-03-30)
Treatment trajectory · 1920 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1920 1973 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 22 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Joshua Harrell v. Andrew Coop, et al.
D. Maryland · 2026 · confidence medium
Only “a state’s highest court is entitled to say what that state’s law is on the question of consent to suit in federal court.” Lee-Thomas, 666 F.3d at 252 (citing Palmer v. Ohio, 248 U.S. 32, 34 (1918)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Spurling v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
S.D.W. Va · 2025 · confidence medium
Palmer v. Ohio, 248 U.S. 32, 34 (1918). 10 that it “lacks insurance coverage” for Plaintiff’s claims, (ECF Nos. 14 at 3; 32 at 3), Plaintiff asserts that this “position is new,” (ECF No. 27 at 6).8 Plaintiff further contends that the Court must accept as true her allegations “that the FSUBOG has insurance coverage and that insurance coverage applies to this case.” (Id.) Well, ask and ye shall receive.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Gilliam v. Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services
D. Maryland · 2024 · confidence medium
Sch., 666 F.3d 244, 249 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting Palmer v. Ohio, 248 U.S. 32, 34 (1918)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Bowling v. Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services
D. Maryland · 2024 · confidence medium
Sch., 666 F.3d 244, 249 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting Palmer v. Ohio, 248 U.S. 32, 34 (1918)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Williams v. Coppin State University
D. Maryland · 2024 · confidence medium
Sch., 666 F.3d 244, 249 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting Palmer v. Ohio, 248 U.S. 32, 34 (1918)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Mack v. State of Maryland Department of Human Services
D. Maryland · 2024 · confidence medium
Schools, 666 F.3d 244, 249 (4th Cir. 2012) (cleaned up) (quoting Palmer v. Ohio, 248 U.S. 32, 34 (1918)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Litchfield v. Rinehart
D. Maryland · 2022 · confidence medium
Sch., 666 F.3d 244, 249 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting Palmer v. Ohio, 248 U.S. 32, 34 (1918)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Waheed v. State of Maryland
D. Maryland · 2021 · confidence medium
Sch., 666 F.3d 244, 249 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting Palmer v. Ohio, 248 U.S. 32, 34 (1918)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Williams v. Morgan State University
D. Maryland · 2021 · confidence medium
Sch., 666 F.3d 244, 249 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting Palmer v. Ohio, 248 U.S. 32, 34 (1918)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) PennEast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey
SCOTUS · 2021 · confidence medium
E.g., Georgia R. & Banking Co. v. Musgrove, 335 U. S. 900 (1949) (per curiam); Palmer v. Ohio, 248 U. S. 32, 34 (1918).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Medsense, LLC v. University System of Maryland
D. Maryland · 2019 · confidence medium
Express Waiver “[A] state’s highest court is entitled to say what that state’s law is on the question of consent to suit in a federal court.” Lee-Thomas, 666 F.3d at 252 (citing Palmer v. Ohio, 248 U.S. 32, 34 (1918)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida (2×)
SCOTUS · 1996 · confidence medium
The court decided that those provisions of § 2710(d)(7)that were problematic could be severed from the rest of the section, and read the surviving provisions of § 2710(d)(7)to provide an Indian tribe with immediate recourse to the Secretary of the Interior from the dismissal of a suit against a State. 11 F. 3d 1016 , 1029 (1994). [5] Respondents filed a cross-petition,No. 94-219, challenging only the Eleventh Circuit's modification of § 2710(d)(7), see n. 4, supra. That petition is still pending. [6] While the appeal was pending before the Eleventh Circuit, the District Court granted respon…
cited Cited as authority (rule) State Board of Education v. Drury
Ga. · 1993 · confidence medium
It can come only from the consent of the State. [Cits.] Palmer v. Ohio, 248 U. S. 32, 34 (39 SC 16, 63 LE 108) (1918). 5.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Begay v. State
N.M. Ct. App. · 1985 · confidence medium
We said: "There is nothing indicating that the particular entity responsible is other than the regents or that the state, apart from the regents, has any responsibility." Id. at 195.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon (2×)
SCOTUS · 1985 · confidence medium
E. g., North Carolina v. Temple, 134 U. S. 22, 30 (1890); Fitts v. McGhee, 172 U. S. 516, 524 (1899); Bell v. Mississippi, 177 U. S. 693 (1900); Smith v. Reeves, 178 U. S. 436, 446 (1900); Palmer v. Ohio, 248 U. S. 32, 34 (1918); Duhne v. New Jersey, 251 U. S. 311, 313 (1920); Ex parte New York, 256 U. S., at 497 ; Missouri v. Fiske, 290 U. S. 18, 26 (1933); Great Northern Life Insurance Co. v. Read, 322 U. S. 47, 51 (1944); Ford Motor Co. v. Department of Treasury of Indiana, 323 U. S. 459, 464 (1945); Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. v. Redwine, 342 U. S. 299, 304, n. 13 (1952); Parden v. Term…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kristensen v. Strinden
N.D. · 1983 · confidence medium
In Palmer v. Ohio, 248 U.S. 32, 34 , 39 S.Ct. 16 , 63 L.Ed. 108, 109 (1918), the Court stated that “[t]he right of individuals to sue a State, in either a federal or a state court, cannot be derived from the Constitution or laws of the United States.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Deal v. Tannehill Furnace & Foundry Com'n
Ala. · 1983 · confidence medium
It can come only from the consent of the state. [Citations omitted.]" 248 U.S. at 34 , 39 S.Ct. at 16.
discussed Cited "see" Squire v. Maryland Transit Administration
D. Maryland · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
Md. 2014) (quoting Lee- Thomas, 666 F.3d at 249 (4th Cir. 2012)); see Lee-Thomas, 666 F.3d at 249 (recognizing “that the question of waiver of sovereign immunity by a state constitutional provision or statute is a matter of state law, ‘as to which the decision of the [state’s highest court] is controlling’” (quoting Palmer v. Ohio, 248 U.S. 32, 34 (1918)).
cited Cited "see" Wriston v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources
S.D.W. Va · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
See Palmer v. Ohio, 248 U.S. 32, 34 (1918).
discussed Cited "see" Lee-Thomas v. Prince George's County Public Schools (2×)
4th Cir. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See Palmer, 248 U.S. at 34 , 39 S.Ct. 16 ; see also Johnson v. Fankell, 520 U.S. 911, 916 , 117 S.Ct. 1800 , 138 L.Ed.2d 108 (1997) (“Neither [the Supreme] Court nor any other federal tribunal has any authority to place a construction on a state statute different from the one rendered by the highest court of the State.”); Parden v. Terminal Ry. of Ala. State Docks Dep't, 377 U.S. 184, 194-95 , 84 S.Ct. 1207 , 12 L.Ed.2d 233 (1964) (“[W]hether a State has waived its immunity depends upon its intention and is a question of state law only.”), overruled on other grounds, Coll.
examined Cited "see" Lienhard v. State (3×)
Minn. Ct. App. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See Palmer v. Ohio, 248 U.S. 32, 34 , 39 S.Ct. 16, 16-17 , 63 L.Ed. 108 (1918); Harris v. County of Racine, 512 F.Supp. 1273, 1278 (E.D.Wis.1981).
cited Cited "see" Azizi v. Board of Regents of the University System
Ga. Ct. App. · 1974 · signal: see · confidence high
See Crowder v. Department of State Parks, supra, and Palmer v. Ohio, 248 U. S. 32 (39 SC 16, 63 LE 108).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Palmer Et Al.
v.
State of Ohio
260.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Dec 9, 1918.
248 U.S. 32
Mr. Clarence D. Laylin and Mr. Frank Davis, Jr., for defendant in error, submitted the motion. Mr. Joseph McGhee, Attorney General of the State of Ohio, was also on the brief., Mr. I. F. Raudábaugh and Mr. John G. Romer, for plaintiffs in error, in opposition to the motion.
Clarke.
Cited by 77 opinions  |  Published
Mr. Justice Clarke

delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiffs in error sued the State of Ohio for damages for flooding lands by elevating the spillway of a state-maintained dam. The Supreme Court of the State affirmed the action of the lower courts in dismissing the petition on the ground that the State had not consented so to be sued, and we are asked to review this decisiop.

The plaintiffs in error agree, as they must, that their suit cannot be maintained without the consent of the State, but" they claim that such consent was given in an amendment to § 16 of Article I of the state constitution, adopted in 1912, which reads:

“Suits may be brought against the State, in such courts and in such manner, as may be provided by law.”

The State Supreme Court held that this amendment is not self-executing, and that the General Assembly of the State having failed to designate the courts and the Planner in which such suits might be brought, effective consent to sue had not been given. This decision, the plaintiffs in error claim, vaguely and indefinitely, somehow deprives them of their property without due process of law, in[*34] violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

The right of individuals to sue a State, in either a federal or a state court, cannot be derived from the Constitution or laws of the United States. It can come only from the consent of the State. Beers v. Arkansas, 20 How. 527; Railroad Company v. Tennessee, 101 U. S. 337; Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U. S. 1. Whether Ohio gave the required consent must be determined by the construction to be given to the constitutional amendment quoted, and this is a question of local state law, as to which the decision of the State Supreme Court is controlling with, this court, no federal right being involved.. Elmendorf v. Taylor, 10 Wheat. 152, 159; Old Colony Trust Co. v. Omaha, 230 U. S. 100, 116; Memphis Street Ry. Co. v. Moore, 243 U. S. 299, 301.

The further claim that the plaintiffs in error are deprived of their property without compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, is palpably groundless. Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243, 250; Brown v. New Jersey, 175 U. S. 172, 174.

No federal question being presented by the record, the motion to affirm is denied and this court, sua sponte, .dismisses the writ of error for want of jurisdiction.

Dismissed.