Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T04:53:25.433Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sovereign Immunity Limited to Essential Government Functions: New York v. United States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 April 2017

Arthur K. Kuhn
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Editorial Comment
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 40 , Issue 2 , April 1946 , pp. 374 - 376
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1946

References

1 State of New York and Saratoga Springs Commission and Saratoga Springs Authority v. The United States of America. Advance Opinions, 1946, U. S. Law Week 4089.

2 47 Stat. 169, 264; Sec. 615 (a) (5).

3 (1934) 292 U. S. 360 at p. 369.

4 South Carolina v. Untied States, 1905, 199 U. S. 437.

5 United States Bank v. Planters’ Bank of Georgia, 1824, 9 Wheat. 904, 907.

6 See the writer’s editorial comment in this Journal, Vol. 21 (1927), p. 742.

7 See editorial comments in this Journal, Vol. 28 (1934), pp. 119–122; Vol. 39 (1945), p. 772. See also Harvard Research in International Law, draft treaty, in Supplement to this Journal, Vol. 26 (1932), p. 455, Arts. 11, 23, 25.