English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

A plaintiff who wants to compel or to enjoin governmental action usually escapes the doctrine of sovereign immunity by suing an officer. The courts are accustomed to indulging in the fiction that such a suit is not against the government, even though all concerned are fully aware that it is. The question whether or when sovereign immunity is a defense in such a suit against an officer has been treated elsewhere.1 This paper is concerned with the two incidental but troublesome problems of superior officers as indispensable parties in suits against subordinate officers, and the substitution of successors of officers who are named as defendants. On the first of these two problems, only slight exaggeration is involved in the statement that eight Supreme Court decisions provide eight solutions. On the second problem, the Advisory Committee on Rules for Civil Procedure has asserted that "the substitution of one nominal party for another nominal party is a time-consuming formality," but proposes to continue the requirement of the formality.' Both problems happily seem to be susceptible to satisfactory solution.

Government Officers as Defendants: Two Troublesome Problems