Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corp. · ¶68
One problem with the States' position is that it focuses on the label a State places on an entity, rather than assessing whether the State structured the entity as legally separate. See supra, at 525. Another problem is that the States' position prioritizes one of New Jersey's characterizations, the term “instrumentality,” over another, “body corporate.” There is no good reason to believe that the State intended for NJ Transit to be part of the State itself by using the word “instrumentality,” when it simultaneously used the word “body corporate,” a term traditionally understood to create a “[s]eparate legal personality.” First Nat. City Bank, 462 U. S., at 625; see Moor, 693 U. S., at 719–720 (holding that designation as “ `body corporate' ” showed lack of arm-of-the-State status even though state law deemed counties “ `subdivisions of the State' ”). The States' preferred test that any…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.