stating that the Eleventh Amendment “bar[s] federal courts from deciding virtually any case in which a state or the ‘arm of a state’ is a defendant . . . unless the state has affirmatively consented to suit” (citations omitted)
How later courts described this case
- stating that the Eleventh Amendment “bar[s] federal courts from deciding virtually any case in which a state or the ‘arm of a state’ is a defendant . . . unless the state has affirmatively consented to suit” (citations omitted)
- explaining that agencies that are arms of the state are entitled to the same immunity from suit as the state because “‘the state is the real, substantial party in interest’” (citation omitted)
- holding that a state law defining a community development authority as “body corpo- rate operating as a state instrumentality” indicated that it had “its own independent corporate identity”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BURNS, Senior District Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent.