Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corp. · ¶49

This Court's decision in Hopkins v. Clemson, 221 U. S. 636 (1911), helps illustrate the difference between these two related paths of analysis. In Hopkins, a plaintiff sued a state college for building an embankment on the side of a river, which redirected the river's fow and “ruined” his downstream property. Id., at 641–642. He sought both damages and an order to remove the embankment. The Court held that the damages claim could proceed because the college was not an arm of the State, explaining that the college was instead a corporation that “might sue and be sued, plead and be impleaded, in its corporate name.” Id., at 646. Nevertheless, the Court explained that, because the State owned the title to the land on which the embankment sat, the State might be a “necessary party.” Id., at 648–649. If so, any order to remove the embankment would run directly against the State and would…

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