Citation network
Felder Vs. Casey
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 22, 1988
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. 131 (1988) U.S. Supreme Court Felder v. CaseySearch
-
U.S. 131 (1988) Felder v. CaseySearch
-
clash with the remedial purposes of the federal civil rights laws. Pp. 487 U. S. 145 -146. (e) Patsy v. BoardSearch
-
Brown v. WesternSearch
-
U. S. 637 , 402 U. S. 649 (1971) (quoting Hines v. DavidowitzSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
litigation brought in state courts, which possess concurrent jurisdiction over such actions, see Patsy v. BoardSearch
-
in state court, because the application of the state immunity law would thwart the congressional remedy, see Martinez v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U. S. 284 (1980), which of course already provides certain immunities for state officials. See e.g., Davis v. SchererSearch
-
actions brought in federal court. See Brown v. UnitedSearch
-
Cardo v. LakelandSearch
-
Supreme Court has held that the statutory limits on recovery are preempted in federal civil rights actions, Thompson v. VillageSearch
-
Brown v. UnitedSearch
-
Gutter v. SeamandelSearch
-
or inappropriate and unlawful governmental conduct, which allows for prompt corrective measures. See Nielsen v. TownSearch
-
Binder v. MadisonSearch
-
Pattermann v. WhitewaterSearch
-
condition precedent to recovery in all actions brought in state court against governmental entities or officers. Sambs v. NowakSearch
-
Brown v. UnitedSearch
-
the Page 487 U. S. 147 governmental defendant investigates the claim and attempts to settle it. In Patsy v. BoardSearch
-
Wilson v. GarciaSearch
-
Monessen Southwestern R. Co. v. MorganSearch
-
s outcome-determinative law must give way when a party asserts a federal right in state court. Under Erie R. Co. v. TompkinsSearch
-
state law claims against Wisconsin municipalities are obligated to apply the notice of claim provision. See Orthmann v. AppleSearch
-
Garrett v. Moore-McCormackSearch
-
R. Co. of Alabama, supra, at 338 U. S. 298 -299 (quoting Davis v. WechslerSearch
-
in state courts lay in their jury factfinding processes, which of course were skewed by local prejudices, see Patsy v. BoardSearch
-
Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. BurnetteSearch
-
U. S. 199 , 239 U. S. 201 (1915). See also Engel v. DavenportSearch
-
McAllister v. MagnoliaSearch
-
same federal cause of action must apply the same state statute of limitations. We made such a determination in Wilson v. GarciaSearch
-
Id. at 471 U. S. 276 . It has since been assumed that Wilson v. GarciaSearch
-
suits brought in state, as well as federal, court. See, e.g., Russell v. AnchorageSearch
-
Ziccardi v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
Walker v. MaruffiSearch
-
Maddocks v. SaltSearch
-
South Salina Street, Inc. v. SyracuseSearch
-
Fuchilla v. LaymanSearch
-
Henderson v. StateSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Felder v. CaseySearch
-
Patsy v. BoardSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial