Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 New York opinions name it 4 courts 1978–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.green2 sentences2006A local government may not be sued under section 1983 for a constitutional injury inflicted by employees or agents not acting pursuant to official municipal policy or custom (see Monell v New York City Dept, of Social Servs., 436 US 658, 694 [1978]; Brown v State of New York, 89 NY2d 172, 185 [1996]). 1992(Monell v New York City Dept. of Social Servs., 436 US 658, 690 .) The municipality is subject to liability for the acts of its officials/employees only if the action that is alleged to be unconstitutional "implements or executes a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted and promulgated by that body’s officers”. | 1 | 2 |
Felder v. Caseygreen2 sentences2000Citing Felder (supra) claimants argue at page 1 of their memorandum of law that where “the State has chosen to subject itself to suit in its courts for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, it cannot mold the contours of the rights conferred by the Act to suit itself.” In Felder (supra), an arrestee allegedly beaten during the course of his arrest by police officers employed by the City of Milwaukee failed to meet the requirements of the Wisconsin notice of claim statute in bringing his State court action against the City and certain of the arresting officers under 42 USC § 1983 . 2000Citing Felder (supra) claimants argue at page 1 of their memorandum of law that where “the State has chosen to subject itself to suit in its courts for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, it cannot mold the contours of the rights conferred by the Act to suit itself.” In Felder (supra), an arrestee allegedly beaten during the course of his arrest by police officers employed by the City of Milwaukee failed to meet the requirements of the Wisconsin notice of claim statute in bringing his State court action against the City and certain of the arresting officers under 42 USC § 1983 . | 1 | 2 |
Bower Associates v. Town of Pleasant Valleygreen2 sentences2021That said, although the majority has correctly stated the standard governing an equal protection claim based upon selective enforcement under 42 USC § 1983 , we do not agree that petitioners have met the "impermissible considerations" component of that standard ( Bower Assoc. v Town of Pleasant Val. , 2 NY3d 617, 631 [2004]). 2021Since petitioners "do not allege selective treatment based on race, religion or punishment for the exercise of constitutional rights," they must demonstrate that respondent Town of Benson acted "with malevolent intent" in treating Van Slyke Road as abandoned ( id. ). | 1 | 1 |
315-321 Realty Co. v. City of New Yorkgreen1 sentence2017Auth., 61 AD3d 1145, 1148 [2009]), nor may it be sued “for a constitutional injury inflicted by employees or agents [who were] not acting pursuant to [an] official municipal policy or custom” (315-321 Realty Co. Assoc., LLC v City of New York, 33 AD3d 509, 509 [2006]). | 1 | 1 |
Shelton v. New York State Liquor Authoritygreen1 sentence2017Auth., 61 AD3d 1145, 1148 [2009]), nor may it be sued “for a constitutional injury inflicted by employees or agents [who were] not acting pursuant to [an] official municipal policy or custom” (315-321 Realty Co. Assoc., LLC v City of New York, 33 AD3d 509, 509 [2006]). | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. State of New Yorkgreen1 sentence2006A local government may not be sued under section 1983 for a constitutional injury inflicted by employees or agents not acting pursuant to official municipal policy or custom (see Monell v New York City Dept, of Social Servs., 436 US 658, 694 [1978]; Brown v State of New York, 89 NY2d 172, 185 [1996]). | 1 | 1 |
Howlett Ex Rel. Howlett v. Rosegreen1 sentence2005State courts cannot deny a federal right in the absence of a “valid excuse,” i.e., a neutral state rule regarding court administration which is not inconsistent with or in violation of federal law (see Howlett v Rose, supra at 369-370). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Will v. Michigan Department of State Police
green
2 sentences2007Ordinarily, a state cannot be sued under 42 USC § 1983 because states are not considered to be "persons" within the purview of the federal statute ( see Will v Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 US at 65 ). 2007Ordinarily, a state cannot be sued under 42 USC § 1983 because states are not considered to be “persons” within the purview of the federal statute (see Will v Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 US at 65 ). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Harris v. James
green
1 sentence1998Several courts have found that the amendment forecloses a reading of Suter that would preclude section 1983 enforcement of a provision in a State plan statute merely because it was included in such a statute (see, Harris v James, 127 F3d 993, 1002-1003 , supra; Doe v District of Columbia, 93 F3d 861, 876 ; Value Behavioral Health v Ohio Dept, of Mental Health, 966 F Supp 557, 567 ; Norman v McDonald, 930 F Supp 1219, 1227-1228 ). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Value Behavioral Health, Inc. v. Ohio Department of Mental Health
green
1 sentence1998Several courts have found that the amendment forecloses a reading of Suter that would preclude section 1983 enforcement of a provision in a State plan statute merely because it was included in such a statute (see, Harris v James, 127 F3d 993, 1002-1003 , supra; Doe v District of Columbia, 93 F3d 861, 876 ; Value Behavioral Health v Ohio Dept, of Mental Health, 966 F Supp 557, 567 ; Norman v McDonald, 930 F Supp 1219, 1227-1228 ). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Visiting Nurse Ass'n of North Shore v. Bullen
green
1 sentence1998Some opine that it limits Suter to its facts and/or returns the law to its pre-Suter (Wilder) state (Visiting Nurse Assn, v Bullen, 93 F3d 997 , 1003, cert denied 519 US 1114 ; Stanberry v Sherman, 75 F3d 581, 583-584 ; Vogelsang v Cayuga County, 1998 US Dist LEXIS 3848 [ND NY, Mar. 25, 1998, Pooler, J.]; Messier v Southbury Training School, 916 F Supp 133, 143 ). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Norman v. McDonald
green
1 sentence1998Several courts have found that the amendment forecloses a reading of Suter that would preclude section 1983 enforcement of a provision in a State plan statute merely because it was included in such a statute (see, Harris v James, 127 F3d 993, 1002-1003 , supra; Doe v District of Columbia, 93 F3d 861, 876 ; Value Behavioral Health v Ohio Dept, of Mental Health, 966 F Supp 557, 567 ; Norman v McDonald, 930 F Supp 1219, 1227-1228 ). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Stanberry v. Sherman
green
1 sentence1998Some opine that it limits Suter to its facts and/or returns the law to its pre-Suter (Wilder) state (Visiting Nurse Assn, v Bullen, 93 F3d 997 , 1003, cert denied 519 US 1114 ; Stanberry v Sherman, 75 F3d 581, 583-584 ; Vogelsang v Cayuga County, 1998 US Dist LEXIS 3848 [ND NY, Mar. 25, 1998, Pooler, J.]; Messier v Southbury Training School, 916 F Supp 133, 143 ). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Messier v. Southbury Training School
green
1 sentence1998Some opine that it limits Suter to its facts and/or returns the law to its pre-Suter (Wilder) state (Visiting Nurse Assn, v Bullen, 93 F3d 997 , 1003, cert denied 519 US 1114 ; Stanberry v Sherman, 75 F3d 581, 583-584 ; Vogelsang v Cayuga County, 1998 US Dist LEXIS 3848 [ND NY, Mar. 25, 1998, Pooler, J.]; Messier v Southbury Training School, 916 F Supp 133, 143 ). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Jane Doe, a Minor Child, by Next Friend, Leslie G. Fein v. District of Columbia
green
1 sentence1998Several courts have found that the amendment forecloses a reading of Suter that would preclude section 1983 enforcement of a provision in a State plan statute merely because it was included in such a statute (see, Harris v James, 127 F3d 993, 1002-1003 , supra; Doe v District of Columbia, 93 F3d 861, 876 ; Value Behavioral Health v Ohio Dept, of Mental Health, 966 F Supp 557, 567 ; Norman v McDonald, 930 F Supp 1219, 1227-1228 ). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Visiting Nurse Ass'n of North Shore, Inc. v. Bullen
red
1 sentence1998Some opine that it limits Suter to its facts and/or returns the law to its pre-Suter (Wilder) state (Visiting Nurse Assn, v Bullen, 93 F3d 997 , 1003, cert denied 519 US 1114 ; Stanberry v Sherman, 75 F3d 581, 583-584 ; Vogelsang v Cayuga County, 1998 US Dist LEXIS 3848 [ND NY, Mar. 25, 1998, Pooler, J.]; Messier v Southbury Training School, 916 F Supp 133, 143 ). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Clark v. Bond Stores, Inc.
neutral
1 sentence1978(CPLR 405, subds [a], [c]; 2001.) THE ATTORNEY’S FEE CLAIM A. LEGAL STANDARDS Just as the courts of this State have concurrent jurisdiction with the Federal courts over claims under section 1983 of title 42 of the United States Code itself (see, e.g., Cooper v Morin, 50 AD2d 32 ; Clark v Bond Stores, 41 AD2d 620 ; Brody v Leamy, 90 Misc 2d 1 ), that jurisdiction is now extended to attorneys’ fee claims awarded under the act (US Code, tit 42, § 1988), which was passed by Congress to help effectuate the enforcement of claims under section 1983. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Cooper v. Morin
green
1 sentence1978(CPLR 405, subds [a], [c]; 2001.) THE ATTORNEY’S FEE CLAIM A. LEGAL STANDARDS Just as the courts of this State have concurrent jurisdiction with the Federal courts over claims under section 1983 of title 42 of the United States Code itself (see, e.g., Cooper v Morin, 50 AD2d 32 ; Clark v Bond Stores, 41 AD2d 620 ; Brody v Leamy, 90 Misc 2d 1 ), that jurisdiction is now extended to attorneys’ fee claims awarded under the act (US Code, tit 42, § 1988), which was passed by Congress to help effectuate the enforcement of claims under section 1983. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Brody v. P. J. Leamy
green
1 sentence1978(CPLR 405, subds [a], [c]; 2001.) THE ATTORNEY’S FEE CLAIM A. LEGAL STANDARDS Just as the courts of this State have concurrent jurisdiction with the Federal courts over claims under section 1983 of title 42 of the United States Code itself (see, e.g., Cooper v Morin, 50 AD2d 32 ; Clark v Bond Stores, 41 AD2d 620 ; Brody v Leamy, 90 Misc 2d 1 ), that jurisdiction is now extended to attorneys’ fee claims awarded under the act (US Code, tit 42, § 1988), which was passed by Congress to help effectuate the enforcement of claims under section 1983. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.