Skip to content


Benz Vs. New York State Thruway Auth. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number369 U.S. 147
AppellantBenz
RespondentNew York State Thruway Auth.
Excerpt:
benz v. new york state thruway auth. - 369 u.s. 147 (1962) u.s. supreme court benz v. new york state thruway auth., 369 u.s. 147 (1962) benz v. new york state thruway authority no. 234 argued february 28-march 1, 1962 decided march 19, 1962 369 u.s. 147 certiorari to the court of appeals of new york syllabus 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. 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.....
Judgment:
Benz v. New York State Thruway Auth. - 369 U.S. 147 (1962)
U.S. Supreme Court Benz v. New York State Thruway Auth., 369 U.S. 147 (1962)

Benz v. New York State Thruway Authority

No. 234

Argued February 28-March 1, 1962

Decided March 19, 1962

369 U.S. 147

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK

Syllabus

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.

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 .

Page 369 U. S. 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.

* [Reporter's Note: Such a bill became a law on April 29, 1962, N.Y.Laws 1962, c. 940.]


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //