Supreme Court of Vermont· 11/9/1990

Williams v. State

Citations

589 A.2d 840
156 Vt. 42
1990 Vt. LEXIS 271

How courts have described this case

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

stating that although commissioner of Department of Motor Vehicles was “not authorized to rule upon the constitutionality of the statutes he is bound to administer,” he had jurisdiction to consider parties’ claims that statutes were administered in unconstitutional manner
acknowledging that “due process may require that states entertain suits against them though they have not consented,” but cautioning that common law sovereign immunity “is not vitiated entirely” as long as state “comports with due process principles”
superior court's general authority to grant declaratory relief does not provide jurisdiction where legislature has designated another tribunal to hear certain claims
“A mere abstract question or hypothetical threat is not a sufficient basis for a declaratory judgment.”
“We do not believe a Bivens-type action may be brought directly under the Fourteenth Amendment in light of Congress’ express provision in 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a damage remedy against state officials who have violated federal law.”
§ 1983 “provides a private remedy for those alleging abridgement of federal rights”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Allen, Gibson, Wolchik, Katz, Supr, Fisher

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

32 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

41 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.