Skip to content


Hollingsworth Vs. Virginia - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number3 U.S. 378
AppellantHollingsworth
RespondentVirginia
Excerpt:
..... 3 u.s. (3 dall.) 378 syllabus the amendment of the constitution of the united states by which the judicial power of the united states was declared not to extend to any suit commenced or prosecuted by a citizen or citizens of another state or by foreign subjects against a state prevented the exercise of jurisdiction in any case past or future. the decision of the court, in the case of chisholm v. georgia, 2 u. s. 419 , produced a proposition in congress for amending the constitution of the united states according to the following terms: "the judicial power of the united states shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law and equity commenced or prosecuted against one of the united states by citizens of another state or by citizens.....
Judgment:
Hollingsworth v. Virginia - 3 U.S. 378 (1798)
U.S. Supreme Court Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 U.S. 3 Dall. 378 378 (1798)

Hollingsworth v. Virginia

3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 378

Syllabus

The amendment of the Constitution of the United States by which the judicial power of the United States was declared not to extend to any suit commenced or prosecuted by a citizen or citizens of another state or by foreign subjects against a state prevented the exercise of jurisdiction in any case past or future.

The decision of the court, in the case of Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U. S. 419 , produced a proposition in Congress for amending the Constitution of the United States according to the following terms:

"The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law and equity commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state."

The proposition being now adopted by the constitutional number of states, Lee, Attorney General, submitted this question to the Court whether the amendment did or did not supersede all suits depending, as well as prevent the institution of new suits against any one of the United States by citizens of another state.

Page 3 U. S. 382

The Court, on the day succeeding the argument, delivered an unanimous opinion that the amendment being constitutionally adopted, there could not be exercised any jurisdiction in any case, past or future, in which a state was sued by the citizens of another state or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.


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