North Carolina v. Temple
U.S.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2026David Knellinger and Robert Storey, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. David Young, in his official capacities as Colorado Treasurer, Colorado Office of Treasury; and Bianca Gardelli, in her individual and official capacities as Director of Colorado Department of Treasury, Unclaimed Property Division D. Colo.
- 2025John Doe #1–9 v. William B. Lee, in his official capacity as Governor of Tennessee, et al. M.D. Tenn.
- 2008Vann v. Kempthorne D.C. Cir.
- 1996Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida U.S.
- 1996Lilley v. State of Mo. E.D. Mo.
- 1996Lilley ex rel. Missouri Defense Bonds v. Missouri E.D. Mo.
- 1994Johnsen v. Collins S.D. Ga.
- 1992Barry v. Fordice S.D. Miss.
- 1989Hill v. Florida Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services M.D. Fla.
- 1985Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon U.S.
Cites 3 cases
- Louisiana v. Jumel
- Hagood v. Southern
- In re Ayers
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
NORTH CAROLINA v. TEMPLE.
Attorneys
- ■ ■ Mr. B. H. Battle and Mr. John W. Graham for appellants. Mr: T. F. JDmidson, Attorney General of the State of North Carolina, and Mr. Thomas Ruffin were with them on the brief.
- Mr. S. F. Phitlvps for appellee. It is not practicable to give more than the points of Mr. Phillips’s argument, with the citations.
- Mr. Edward L. Andrews also argued for appellee.
After stating the case as above, delivered the opinion of the court.
We think it perfectly clear that the suit against the auditor in this case was virtually a suit against the State of North Carolina. In this regard it comes within the principle of the cases of Louisiana v. Jumel, 107 U. S. 711; Cunningham v. Macon & Brunswick Railroad Co., 109 U. S. 446; Hagood v. Southern, 117 U. S. 52; and In re Ayers, 123 U. S. 443. We do not think it necessary to consider that question anew. ■
The other point, the suability of the State, is settled by the decision just rendered in Hans v. The State of Louisiana, ante, 1.
To the question on which the judges of the Circuit Court were opposed in opinion, our answer is in the negative, namely, that the suit could not be maintained' in the Circuit Court against the State of North Carolina by the plaintiff, a citizen thereof.
The decree of the Circuit Court is
Reversed and the cause rema/nded with instructions to dis- " miss 'the Mil of corrvplaAnt.