Difference between revisions of "42 U.S.C. § 1983"

From Criminal Defense Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 15: Line 15:
  
 
'''Injunctive Relief Suits'''
 
'''Injunctive Relief Suits'''
 +
 
In Ex Parte Young <ref>Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908)</ref> the United States Supreme Court concluded that the 11th Amendment did not bar suits against '''state officers''' in federal court for injunctive relief. The state argued that the suit was probibited under the 11th Amendment because they were the real party in interest. The court concluded that the state was not the real party in interest because when he acted unconstitutionally, his authority under the state was stripped.  
 
In Ex Parte Young <ref>Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908)</ref> the United States Supreme Court concluded that the 11th Amendment did not bar suits against '''state officers''' in federal court for injunctive relief. The state argued that the suit was probibited under the 11th Amendment because they were the real party in interest. The court concluded that the state was not the real party in interest because when he acted unconstitutionally, his authority under the state was stripped.  
  
 
'''State Officer Suits'''
 
'''State Officer Suits'''
 +
  
  
 +
'''Waiver'''
 +
 +
Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 (1976)
  
 
In Chisholm v. Georgia <ref>Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793)</ref>, the U.S. Supreme Court first permitted a lawsuit by an out of state resident against a state. Outraged by this usurpation of the common law tradition of sovereign immunity,  
 
In Chisholm v. Georgia <ref>Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793)</ref>, the U.S. Supreme Court first permitted a lawsuit by an out of state resident against a state. Outraged by this usurpation of the common law tradition of sovereign immunity,  

Revision as of 13:10, 10 August 2010

  1. Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793)
  2. Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890)
  3. Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908)
  4. Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793)