BENZ V. NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY AUTH., 369 U. S. 147 (1962)
Subscribe to Cases that cite 369 U. S. 147
Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
USA Constitution Annotated
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Online Case Law
Cornell LII
FastCase $
Lexis $
LexisOne
Loislaw $
USSCPlus.com $
VersusLaw $
Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/369/147/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/369/147/case.html
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.
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.]