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.
2 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 13 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Summit Medical Associates, P.C. v. Pryor.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Summit Medical Associates, P.C. v. Pryor Anchor | green | “the eleventh amendment bars suits against state officials in federal court seeking retrospective or compensatory relief, but does not generally prohibit suits seeking only prospective injunctive or declaratory relief.” | 7 |
| 2 | Edward R. Lane v. Central Alabama Community College | green | “requests for reinstatement constitute prospective injunctive relief that fall within the scope of the ex parte young exception and, thus, are not barred by the eleventh amendment.” | 6 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.