Citation network
Maher Vs. Gagne
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 25, 1980
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 122 (1980) U.S. Supreme Court Maher v. GagneSearch
-
U.S. 122 (1980) Maher v. GagneSearch
-
or a violation of a federal statute providing for the protection of civil or equal rights. As the Court holds in Maine v. ThiboutotSearch
-
consent decree was entered. Under these circumstances, petitioner's Eleventh Amendment claim is foreclosed by Hutto v. FinneySearch
-
constitutional claims that were sufficiently substantial to support federal jurisdiction under the reasoning of Hagans v. LavineSearch
-
protection of civil rights or equal rights. In support of this contention, petitioner relies on our holding in Chapman v. HoustonSearch
-
his argument would have to be rejected. In Maine v. ThiboutotSearch
-
That finding was upheld by the Court of Appeals, and we see no reason to question its validity. See Graver Mfg. Co. v. LindeSearch
-
Court and the Court of Appeals both held to be sufficiently substantial to support federal jurisdiction under Hagans v. LavineSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
decree. Under these circumstances, petitioner's Eleventh Amendment claim is foreclosed by our decision in Hutto v. FinneySearch
-
In Shea v. VialpandoSearch
-
s fees because such fees are ancillary to the imposition of prospective relief within the reasoning of Edelman v. JordanSearch
-
means of implementing the Fourteenth Amendment overrides the State's Eleventh Amendment rights, see, e.g., Fitzpatrick v. BitzerSearch
-
Court and the Court of Appeals both found to be sufficiently substantial to support federal jurisdiction under Hagans v. LavineSearch
-
provides a remedy. See Maine v. ThiboutotSearch
-
retroactive liability on the States in the absence of an extraordinarily explicit statutory mandate. See Employees v. MissouriSearch
-
Edelman v. JordanSearch
-
immunity. The practice of awarding costs against the States goes back to 1849 in this Court. See Missouri v. IowaSearch
-
In Fairmont Creamery Co. v. MinnesotaSearch
-
the non-fee claim, is entitled to a determination on the other claim for the purpose of awarding counsel fees. Morales v. HainesSearch
-
question which the courts are reluctant to resolve if the nonconstitutional claim is dispositive. Hagans v. LavineSearch
-
In such cases, if the claim for which fees may be awarded meets the 'substantiality' test, see Hagans v. LavineSearch
-
the plaintiff prevails on the non-fee claim arising out of a 'common nucleus of operative fact.' United Mine Workers v. GibbsSearch
-
Petitioner seeks to distinguish this case from Hutto v. FinneySearch
-
in this case than to the constitutional claims asserted here or to the equal protection claim asserted in Fitzpatrick v. BitzerSearch
-
constitutional claims as defined in Hagans v. LavineSearch
-
Consequently, I see no reason to reach out, as the Court does in 448 U. S. to apply today's ruling in Maine v. ThiboutotSearch
-
the constitutional cause of action. In contrast, 448 U. S. Ante at 448 U. S. 131 . Hutto v. FinneySearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Maher v. GagneSearch
-
of Hagans v. LavineSearch
-
Chapman v. HoustonSearch
-
In Maine v. ThiboutotSearch
-
See Graver Mfg. Co. v. LindeSearch
-
of Edelman v. JordanSearch
-
See Maine v. ThiboutotSearch
-
See Employees v. MissouriSearch
-
Court. See Missouri v. IowaSearch
-
Morales v. HainesSearch
-
North Dakota v. MinnesotaSearch
-
Edelman v. JordanSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial