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.
4 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 42 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 Pollnow v. Glennon.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Pollnow v. Glennon Anchor | green | “a violation of state law is not cognizable under 1983.” | 18 |
| 2 | Pollnow v. Glennon | green | “clearly, a violation of state law is not cognizable under 1983.” | 9 |
| 3 | Kevin Holcomb v. Mark Lykens, Sean Smith, Joanne Pereria and John Gorczyk | green | “state statutes do not create federally protected due process entitlements to specific state-mandated procedures.” | 9 |
| 4 | Rivera v. Wohlrab | green | “violations of state law procedural requirements do not alone constitute a deprivation of due process since federal constitutional standards rather than state law define the requirements of procedural due process.” | 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.