1 Lindsay Carswell
2 Hollingsworth vs. Virginia 1907
3 The reason why this case was applied to the eleventh amendment was because the United States Supreme Court offered no rationale for its holding. Although the Court held that a presidential signature was not necessary for valid ratification that holding is limited to the precise facts that were actually before the Court.
4 The Supreme Court nowhere expressed this position in its Hollingsworth opinion. The Court may have taken the position that once ratified by the requisite number of States, an amendment or proposed amendment can no longer be challenged.
5 This means that Under these circumstances, the absence of a presidential signature does not work a veto, but implies assent under the procedures laid out in artical 1, even assuming they apply to the amendment process of Artical 1V.
Lindsay Carswell Hollingsworth vs. Virgina 1907

MARIEL IS DOING. Seminole Tribe of Florida vs. Florida

1.Alex Ashmore
2.Hans vs Louisianna (1890)
3.The reason the 11th Amendment was applied to this case is Hans, a citizen of Louisianna, filed a suit against the state in the United States District Court, stating that Louisiana was impairing the obligations of a contract, which was forbidden by Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution. The issue facing the Court was "whether a state can be sued in a Circuit Court of the United States by one of its own citizens upon a suggestion that the case is one that arises under the Constitution or laws of the United States."
4.The ruling was that the Supreme Court could hear appeals of a state's successful suit against a citizen because this was not the same thing as a citizen's suit against the state.
5.This decision means that while a citizen cannot sue their state, their state can sue them. The impact is the same as its meaning. No citizen can take their state to court, but their state can take them to court.

1.Tanya Townsend
2.Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer,1976
3.The plantiffs sued the state of Conneticut for sex discrimination in retirment policies.
4.The Court ruled that Congress has the power to abrogate sovereign immunity of states, because the amendment was enacted specifically to limit the power of the states, with the purpose of enforcing civil rights guarantees against them.
5.The court ruled against the men and that states have that right and can inforce it.

Colleen is doing Chisholm vs. Georgia\
1.Colleen Burdsall
2.Chisholm vs. Georgia (1793)
3. Alexander Chisholm supplied the state of Georgia with goods during the Revolutionary War. He was from South nCarolina. After he died the people settling his estate sued the state or Georgia for payment. The Supreme Court said a federal court could try the lawsuit.
4.After people protested the 11th amendment became law.
5. The federal courts have no jurisdiction over cases when a state or citizens of another state.

MARIEL IS DOING. Seminole Tribe of Florida vs. Florida
Christian Ruiz
Flecher v. Peck 1810 (this was a dispute between states mind you)
Peck bought land from Fletcher for a bad title and asking for the return of his money
the court ruled in favor of Peck
it made the government keep a better watch on fraud

Hollingsworth v. Virginia:
Alex Scotland

Tayler B is doing Meyers v. State of Texas, May 18, 2005
Tara Sanders is doing Osborn vs. Bank of the United States


1. Niko Salvatoriello
2. Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831)
3. Does the state of Georgia have the authority to regulate the intercourse between citizens of its state and members of the Cherokee Nation?
4. No they do not have the authority to regulate the intercourse between citizens of its state and members of the Cherokee Nation.
5. This means that no state can stop people from communicating with other groups.

1. Sam Mornhineway
2. //Hans v. Louisiana// (1890)
3. Hans v. Louisana prohibits a state from being sued in a federal courts by one of its own citizens.
4. expressly forbade citizens of one state from suing another state, but said nothing about citizens suing their own state
5.No citizen can take their state to court, but their state can take them to court.

Jenniffer Molina

Hustler Magazine v. Falwell

prohibits awarding damages to public figures to compensate for emotional distress intentionally inflicted upon them unless they can show that the statements that gave rise to the distress were false and that the person that made those statements knew they were false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth in making the statements. Hustler magazine's parody of Jerry Falwell did not satisfy this standard, and so the Court reversed a jury verdict in favor of Falwell awarding him $250,000 in damages.