Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Patsy Vs. Board of Regents of State of Florida

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 21, 1982

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

74 entries 9 linked 65 unlinked
Show
  1. Gibson Vs. Berryhill US Supreme Court · May 07, 1973
  2. Carter Vs. Stanton US Supreme Court · Apr 03, 1972
  3. Wilwording Vs. Swenson US Supreme Court · Dec 14, 1971
  4. Houghton Vs. Shafer US Supreme Court · Jun 17, 1968
  5. Damico Vs. California US Supreme Court · Dec 18, 1967
  6. Juidice Vs. Vail US Supreme Court · Mar 22, 1977
  7. Trainor Vs. Hernandez US Supreme Court · May 31, 1977
  8. Moore Vs. Sims US Supreme Court · Jun 11, 1979
  9. Mitchum Vs. Foster US Supreme Court · Jun 19, 1972
  10. Patsy v. Board
    Search
  11. of Regents of State of Florida - 457 U.S. 496 (1982) U.S. Supreme Court Patsy v. Board
    Search
  12. of Regents of State of Florida, 457 U.S. 496 (1982) Patsy v. Board
    Search
  13. remedies, and remanded the case to the District Court to consider the adequacy of the administrative procedures. Patsy v. Florida
    Search
  14. remedies. On appeal, a panel of the Court of Appeals reversed, and remanded the case for further proceedings. Patsy v. Florida
    Search
  15. the question whether exhaustion should be required. This contention need not detain us long. Beginning with McNeese v. Board
    Search
  16. action should be dismissed where the plaintiff has not exhausted state administrative remedies. See Barry v. Barchi
    Search
  17. King v. Smith
    Search
  18. U. S. 416 (1967). Cf. Steffel v. Thompson
    Search
  19. that we should reconsider these decisions and adopt the Court of Appeals' exhaustion rule, which was based on McKart v. United
    Search
  20. a definitive formula for determining whether prior decisions should be overruled or reconsidered. However, in Monell v. New
    Search
  21. a guarantor of the basic federal rights of individuals against incursions by state power. As we recognized in Mitchum v. Foster
    Search
  22. stated in his closing remarks that the bill was similar in principle to an earlier act upheld by this Court in Prigg v. Pennsylvania
    Search
  23. applied in deference to the superior factfinding ability of the relevant administrative agency. See, e.g., McKart v. United
    Search
  24. forums in the state and federal system, enabling the plaintiff to choose the forum in which to seek relief. Cf. Monroe v. Pape
    Search
  25. competence to pursue this debate, suggest that legislative not judicial solutions are preferable. Cf. Diamond v. Chakrabarty
    Search
  26. Steelworkers v. Bouligny
    Search
  27. in petitioner's amended complaint. In her initial complaint, petitioner named FIU as the defendant. Relying on Byron v. University
    Search
  28. exhaustion is required where Congress provides that certain administrative remedies shall be exclusive. See Myers v. Bethlehem
    Search
  29. agency, and tailor the exhaustion rule to fit the particular administrative scheme created by Congress. See McKart v. United
    Search
  30. sufficient to justify a judicial decision to alter congressionally imposed jurisdiction. See Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer
    Search
  31. Unless the doctrine that statutes of limitations are not tolled pending exhaustion were overruled, see Board of Regent v. Tomanio
    Search
  32. the Board of Regents is an arm of the State for purposes of the Eleventh Amendment. Tr. of Oral Arg. 20. Cf. Alabama v. Pugh
    Search
  33. U. S. 781 (1978). Compare Hopkins v. Clemson
    Search
  34. Agricultural College, 221 U. S. 636 (1911), with Florida Dept. of Health v. Florida
    Search
  35. that it may be raised by the State for the first time on appeal. Edelman v. Jordan
    Search
  36. in the sense that it must be raised and decided by this Court on its own motion. Cf. Mt. Healthy City Bd. of Ed. v. Doyle
    Search
  37. no difficulty in concluding that on the issue of exhaustion, unlike the question of municipal immunity faced in Monell v. New
    Search
  38. the Court has not previously misapprehended the meaning of the 1871 debates in rejecting an exhaustion rule in McNeese v. Board
    Search
  39. general rule, judicially formulated, that exhaustion of administrative remedies is required in a civil action. Myers v. Bethlehem
    Search
  40. McKart v. United
    Search
  41. Myers v. Bethlehem
    Search
  42. action in federal court, Huffman Page 457 U. S. 519 v. Pursue
    Search
  43. should be stayed pending determination of state law issues central to the constitutional dispute. Railroad Comm'n v. Pullman
    Search
  44. S. 522 -523, n. 5, presented more equivocal embodiments of state intent. For example, in Florida Dept. of Health v. Florida
    Search
  45. The same is true of the interstate compact involved in Petty v. Tennessee-Missouri
    Search
  46. Bridge Comm'n, 359 U. S. 275 (1959). The decision in Kennecott Copper Corp. v. Tax
    Search
  47. suits, and remanded to the District Court for consideration of the Board's Eleventh Amendment argument. Patsy v. Florida
    Search
  48. plaintiffs must exhaust available and reasonable administrative remedies. Patsy v. Florida
    Search
  49. to this Court's assumption of original jurisdiction in a suit brought against the State of Georgia. Chisholm v. Georgia
    Search
  50. Court found that it had jurisdiction. The decision is said to have created a shock throughout the country. See Hans v. Louisiana
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial