Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corp. · ¶45

In fact, this Court has never once found a corporation that was liable for its own judgments to be an arm of the State, even when the State had significant control over the entity. That includes cases in which the State was the sole shareholder, possessed appointment and removal powers over the entity's officers, and “ `manage[d]' ” the entity's “ `affairs.' ” Wister, 2 Pet., at 323–324 (Bank of Commonwealth of Kentucky); see Briscoe, 11 Pet., at 344 (Story, J., dissenting) (describing Kentucky's appointment and removal powers over the Bank of Commonwealth of Kentucky). It also includes a case in which the State possessed appointment and removal powers over the entity's officers, veto power over its actions, and “determine[d] the projects [it] undert[ook].” Hess, 513 U. S., at 44–47.

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.