United States v. Novelty Imports, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• deciding the defendant was not an arm of the state with reference to various portions of the California Code
• “we believe that Eleventh Amendment immunity, whatever its 21 jurisdictional attributes, should be treated as an affirmative defense”
• “we believe that Eleventh Amendment immunity, whatever its jurisdictional attributes, should be treated as an affirmative defense”
• “‘When the true facts relating to a disputed issue lie peculiarly within the knowledge of’ one party, the burden of proof may properly be assigned to that party[.]” (quoting United States v. Hays, 369 F.2d 671, 676 (9th Cir. 1966))
• “‘When the true facts relating to a disputed issue lie peculiarly within the knowledge of’ one party, the burden of proof may properly be assigned to that party[.]” (quoting United States v. Hays, 369 F.2d 671, 676 (9th Cir. 1966))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).