DEFENSE · 15usc1125:state-immunity
Judicial constitutional limit, not a statutory exemption from (a)(2). Do not equate every local government or official with an immune state, or assume statutory coverage alone authorizes the requested remedy. College Savings Bank concerned misrepresentations of the state's own product; do not turn its fact-specific abrogation reasoning into a complete rule for all intellectual-property suits.
Exact element source
(2) As used in this subsection, the term “any person” includes any State, instrumentality of a State or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity. Any State, and any such instrumentality, officer, or employee, shall be subject to the provisions of this chapter in the same manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity.Source:
docroot/ir/usc/title15.jsonl#title15_sec1125; Unicode character offsets [990:1370] (end exclusive); SHA-256 0a5680239d11ae3247a99abab2344db45177346d2d2e3050e95c82fb39f3aca7.Routes and case patterns
No routes recorded for this element.
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|
Court interpretations
interpretation
Concluding, for the foregoing reasons, that the sovereign immunity of the State of Florida was neither validly abrogated by the Trademark Remedy Clarification Act, nor voluntarily waived by the State’s activities in interstate commerce, we hold that the federal courts are without jurisdiction to entertain this suit against an arm of the State of Florida. The judgment of the Third Circuit dismissing the action is affirmed.
College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board — 527 U.S. 666 · Supreme Court of the United States · 1999 (15usc1125: author: unavailable · not independently reviewed)
Concluding, for the foregoing reasons, that the sovereign immunity of the State of Florida was neither validly abrogated by the Trademark Remedy Clarification Act, nor voluntarily waived by the State’s activities in interstate commerce, we hold that the federal courts are without jurisdiction to entertain this suit against an arm of the State of Florida. The judgment of the Third Circuit dismissing the action is affirmed.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_527.jsonl#/us/527/0666-01; Unicode character offsets [40395:40820] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8b0b1a46e971ac7d0b9bea1a9800066014164394d532fb45276d6f8eb393dffa.Judicial constitutional limit, not a statutory exemption from (a)(2). Do not equate every local government or official with an immune state, or assume statutory coverage alone authorizes the requested remedy. College Savings Bank concerned misrepresentations of the state's own product; do not turn its fact-specific abrogation reasoning into a complete rule for all intellectual-property suits.