Gray/Bold

Indicates a principle case All cases SCOTUS unless noted

Name Year pg Section Class ScaliaHeld

Bristol Myers Squibb v. Superior Ct. 2017 XX Personal Jurisdiction 2
Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co. 1950 838 Declaratory Judgement Act 3
Aetna Life Insur. Co. v. Haworth 1937 838 Declaratory Judgement Act 3 Upheld Federal DJA
Nashville C. & St. Louis Ry v. Wallace 1933 838 Declaratory Judgement Act 3 Declaratory Judgements are not advisory opinions
Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures 2014 843 Declaratory Judgement Act 3 One hypothetical coercive action establishes arising under JDx for declaratory actions
Shaw v. Delta Airlines 1983 844 Declaratory Judgement Act 3 Actions seeking to enjoin preempted state regulation did not requrie expressly authorized cause of action
Ex Parte Young 1908 844 Declaratory Judgement Act 3
Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, Inc. 2015 845 Declaratory Judgement Act 3 No cause of action for preemption lies directly under the Supremacy Clause
Sprint Comms. V. Jacobs 2013 845 Declaratory Judgement Act 3 Reaffirms Verizon; FQJ extends to a claim that federal law preempts a state administrative adjuidcation
Verizon Maryland Inc. v. Public serv. Comm'n 2002 845 Declaratory Judgement Act 3 Implied right of action to enjoin state or local regulated preempted by federal statute or the constitution
Golden State Transit Corp. v. City of Los Angeles 1989 845 Declaratory Judgement Act 3 42 USC 1983 can embrace actions by a federal rightsholder contending that state or local regulation is
Lawrence Cnty. V. Lead-Deadwood Sch. Dist. 1985 846 Declaratory Judgement Act 3 DICTA: 1331 JDx exists over an action seeking a declaration that state law is preempted
EXCEPTION: Courts decline JDx under the DJA over a claim that federal law did not preempt state law.
Decided same day as Shaw; questionable reasoning
Franchise Tax Bd. V. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust
1983 842, 846 Declaratory Judgement Act 3 States are not prejudiced coming to federal ct; variety of means by which they can enforce their own laws
Strawbridge v. Curtis 1806 297 Congress Control of Cts. 6 Requires compelte diversity when there are multiple parties on one or more sides of a case
Boumediene v. Bush 2008 298 Congress Control of Cts. 6 Habeas Corpus is an affirmative right; witndrawal is unconstitutional under Suspension Clause
Congress cannot pass a law that effectively decides a case properly in front of the court. However, the
United States v. Klein 1871 298 Congress Control of Cts. 6 better reading of this case is that it is more of a separations of powers issue as Congress was determining
Republican Party of Minnesota v. White 2002 302 Congress Control of Cts. 6 Canon of judicial conduct prohibititing state judicial candidates from announcing their positions on
A Michigan citizen assigned a note to a New York resident to get diversity citizenship in order to sue upon a
Sheldon v. Sill 1850 303 Congress Control of Cts. 6 note. Congress stated that this was proper jurisdiction in the Judiciary Act since the original owner could
The Court cannot look into the motivation of congress when stripping the court of jurisdiction. There was
Ex Parte McCardle 1869 304 Congress Control of Cts. 6 an action in front of the court appealing a decision of habeas corpus relief, but Congress stripped the
Martin v. Hunter's Lessee 1816 308 Congress Control of Cts. 6 Basis for constitutional guarantee of lower federal courts; counter Madison Compromise
Lauf v. E.G. Shinner 1938 312 Congress Control of Cts. 6 Norris LaGuardia Act - Power of Congress to define and limit the JDx of inferior courts is without question
Pre - Norris LaGuardia Act - Denial of all effective remedies for violations of common law rights offends due
Truax v. Corrigan 1921 312 Congress Control of Cts. 6 process AND state legislation depriving right of injunctions, when available to others in similar situations,
Felker v. Turpin 1996 317 Congress Control of Cts. 6 reading a statute stripping appellate jurisdiction as not also disallowing original jurisdiction to hear the writ,
Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez 1978 320 Congress Control of Cts. 6 Federal cts possess no jurisidiction over suits to enforce the federal Indian Civil Rights Act; Can only be filed
Congress cannot pass a law that effectively decides a case properly in front of the court. However, the
United States v. Klein 1871 323 Congress Control of Cts. 6 better reading of this case is that it is more of a separations of powers issue as Congress was determining
Robertson v. Seattle Audobon Socy. 1992 324 Congress Control of Cts. 6 Legislation passed during pending appellate changing the law constitutional; amends the preexisting
Wiliams Yulee v. Fla. Bar 2015 303_s21 Congress Control of Cts. 6 Court distances itself from the Republican Party decision in White; rejected a 1st amendment challenge to
Ex Parte Yerger 1869 307, 317 Congress Control of Cts. 6 upholding Bollman
Bank Markazi v. Peterson 2016 324_s22 Congress Control of Cts. 6 Court rejects a Klein challenge relying on Robertson v. Audobon; upholds Congressional power to make
Patchak v. Zinke 2018 324_S22 Congress Control of Cts. 6
Battaglia v. General Motors Corp 1948 326 Congress Control of Cts. 7 2d Cir
Bowen v. Michigan Academy of Family Physicians 1986 329 Congress Control of Cts. 7 A statutory bar of judidical review of certain Medicare awards did not encompass constitutional challenge
Johnson v. Robison 1974 329 Congress Control of Cts. 7 A statute making benefits decisions of the VA final and not reviewable did not apply to constitutional
Marbury v. Madison 1803 330 Congress Control of Cts. 7 Art. III is a ceiling on the power of the court.
Cary v. Curtis 1845 331 Congress Control of Cts. 7 Congress had withdrawn the tradtional right of action against a collector of customs for duties claimed to
Alden v. Maine 1999 333 Congress Control of Cts. 7 Shifts Reich. State SI has to yield in that case because state is bound by the due process clause by promising
Reich v. Collins 1994 333 Congress Control of Cts. 7 A denial by a state court of a recovery of state taxes exacted in violation of the laws or Constitution of the
City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes 1999 334 Congress Control of Cts. 7 Left open question whether SI rationale applies to just compensation claims (damages)
First English Evangelical Lutheran Chruch of Glendale v. Los Angeles Cnty.
1987 334 Congress Control of Cts. 7 In the event of a taking; the compensation remedy is required by the takings clause of the constitution
Supsension Cluase restricts Congress' power to preclude review of the legality of federal executive
detentions; Three factors: strong presumption in favor of judicial review, clear statement requirement to
INS v. St. Cyr 2001 336 Congress Control of Cts. 7 ** suspend Habeas, and constitutional avoidance
Rasul v. Bush 2004 338 Congress Control of Cts. 7 As a matter of statutory interpretation the general grant of HC embraces petitions filed by aliens detained
Zadvydas v. Davis 2001 338 Congress Control of Cts. 7 As a matter of statutory construction, in light of constitutional avoidance, that Cognress had not authorized
South Carolina v. Katzenbach 1966 342 Congress Control of Cts. 7 Upheld provision of voting rights act; Congress may appropiately limting litigation under a provision to a
The Congressional power to ordain/establish inferior courts includes the power of investing tehm with
Lockerty v. Phillips 1943 342 Congress Control of Cts. 7 jurisdiction, either limited, concurrent, or exclusive, and withholding JDx from them in the exact degrees
Distingushes Yakus in Part on the basis it rested on wartime. An enforcement court could nto predicate a
United States v. Mendoza-Lopez 1987 344 Congress Control of Cts. 7 finding of criminal violation on a previous administrative determination where there had been no
Preclusion of a challenge by the defendant to the validity of an Office of Price Administration regulation in a
Bowles v. Willingham 1944 344 Congress Control of Cts. 7 civil action brought by the Administrator to enjoin a landlords state court suit to restratin the issuance of an
Webster v. Doe 1988 329, 330 Congress Control of Cts. 7 ** Some constitutional claims are beyond judicial review because they involve political questions
Habeas Corpus is an affirmative right; witndrawal is unconstitutional under Suspension Clause

Boumediene v. Bush 2008 338-39 Congress Control of Cts. 7 ** DISSENT (Scalia): Doesn't extend to aliens alleged to be enemy combatants
Yakus v. United States 1944 343-44 Congress Control of Cts. 7 Upheld congressional power to limit judicial review and delegate broad and flexible lawmaking power to an
United States v. Lee 1882 878 Suits Against Federal Gov. 9 Immunity has never never been dsicussed or the reasons for it given, but it has been treated as established
Hill v. United States 1859 878 Suits Against Federal Gov. 9 Earliest cases upholding immunity by the United States
United States v. McLemore 1846 878 Suits Against Federal Gov. 9 Earliest cases upholding immunity by the United States
First English Evangelical Lutheran Chruch of Glendale v. Los Angeles Cnty.
1987 879 Suits Against Federal Gov. 9 Sovereign immunity may not apply in a suit under the takings clause
Alden v. Maine 1999 880 Suits Against Federal Gov. 9 Shifts Reich. State SI has to yield in that case because state is bound by the due process clause by promising
Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes 1999 880 Suits Against Federal Gov. 9 Defense of SI may be available with respect to a just compensation claimagianst a state or state entity
A denial by a state court of a recovery of state taxes exacted in violation of the laws or Constitution of the
Reich v. Collins 1994 880 Suits Against Federal Gov. 9 US by compulsion is in contravention of the 14th Amendment; due process requires the state to afford a
Little v. Barreme 1804 880 Suits Against Federal Gov. 9 The claim of official authority could not shield an act that, absent lawful authorization, was a trespass.
United States v. Lee 1882 883 Suits Against Federal Gov. 9
In Re Ayers 1887 890 Suits Against Federal Gov. 9 Rejects party of record argument for reliance on SI defense
Davis v. Gray 1872 890 Suits Against Federal Gov. 9 Latest case to apply to party of record as requirement for sovereign immunity
Osborn v. Bank of the United States 1824 890 Suits Against Federal Gov. 9 Avaialbility of state immunity depends on whether the government was the party of record
Wilbur v. United States ex rel. Krushnic 1930 891 Suits Against Federal Gov. 9 Requires government officials to perform affirmative acts if required by law to discharge some duty
Philadelphia Co. v. Stimson 1912 891 Suits Against Federal Gov. 9 Government officials can be enjoined from causing harm
Louisiana ex rel. Ellito v. Jumel 1883 891 Suits Against Federal Gov. 9 Suit for breach of contract cannot be brought against officers; can be broughly only against the
Vishnevsky v. United States 1978 892 Suits Against Federal Gov. 9 7th Cir.
Approves a writ of mandamus to compel IRS officials to credit plaintiffs with an overpayment of taxes
Shields v. Utah Idaho Cent. RR 1938 892 Suits Against Federal Gov. 9 Ex Parte Young applies to federal officers as well as state
Houston v. Ormes 1920 892 Suits Against Federal Gov. 9 Mandamus Actions are not barred by SI
Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp. 1949 893 Suits Against Federal Gov. 9 Sharply divided ct; SI defense upheld in case where petitioner sought to enjoin federal officers from
Kendall v. United States ex rel Stokes 1838 893 Suits Against Federal Gov. 9 Neither the state nor federal courts, but only the Circuit ct for DC, possessed jurisdiction to issues the writ
McIntire v. Wood 1813 893 Suits Against Federal Gov. 9 Section 11 of the judiciary Act did not authorize a fedreal circuit court to issue mandamus to a local federal
McClung v. Silliman 1821 893 Suits Against Federal Gov. 9 State court do not possess the power to issue writs of Mandamus to federal officials because Congress had
Uphold SI defense nominally against official where both government and private plaintiff claimed title to
Malone v. Bowdoin 1962 894 Suits Against Federal Gov. 9 land. Distinguishable to Lee - no takings claim; subsequent changes in the statutory law would have
United States v. Candelaria 1926 895 Suits Against Federal Gov. 9 Federal government is effectively bound by at least issue preclusion as if it were a party to the judgement;
Carr v. United States 1878 895 Suits Against Federal Gov. 9 United States is not bound by a judgement in an in personem suit against one of its officers
Ex Parte Young 1908 891-92 Suits Against Federal Gov. 9
Chisholm v. Georgia 1793 905 Suits Against State Govs. 10
Worcester v. Georgia 1832 907 Suits Against State Govs. 10 Party seeking writ of error against the state was a noncitizen; SCOTUS allows jurisdiction without 11th
Osborn v. Bank of the United States 1824 907 Suits Against State Govs. 10 Avaialbility of state immunity depends on whether the government was the party of record
Cohens v. Virginia 1821 907 Suits Against State Govs. 10 Petition for writ of error in criminal case is entirely defensive and seeks no affirmative relief; this is not a
Hans v. Louisiana 1890 908 Suits Against State Govs. 10
Ex parte Madrazzo 1833 908 Suits Against State Govs. 10 Dismissed as not within admirality jurisdiction and thus immune. Only case prior to the Civil War that court
Governor of Georgia v. Madrazo 1828 908 Suits Against State Govs. 10 Suit dismissed against governor because demand made is not made personally, but officially and is
DISSENT: 11th Amendment has nothing to do with sovereign immunity; it was designed exclusively to
Atascadero St. Hosp. v. Scanlon 1985 915 Suits Against State Govs. 10 regulate the scope of federal judicial power; 11th amendment bars federal jurisdiction in suits based on
Alden v. Maine 1999 918 Suits Against State Govs. 10 Court barred unconsented private action against a state brought on a federal claim in a state court
Fed. Maritime Comm'n v. SC State Ports Authority 918 Suits Against State Govs. 10 Court barred unconsented private action against a state brought on a federal claim before a federal
California v. Deep Sea Research Inc. 1998 918 Suits Against State Govs. 10 Eleventh amendment did not bar federal jurisdiction over an in rem admirality suit where the state did not
Florida Dept. of State v. Treasure Salvors 1982 918 Suits Against State Govs. 10 Eleventh amendment does not precludea federal district court from issuing a warrant, directed against
Bi-state regional agencies are not immune from suit in federal court unless there is a good reason to
Lake Country Estates Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
1979 918 Suits Against State Govs. 10 believe the state structred the new agency to enable it to enjoy the special constitutional protection of the
Monaco v. Mississippi 1934 918 Suits Against State Govs. 10 The effect of the 11th amendment is to bar suit against a state by a foreign country
Ex Parte New York 1921 918 Suits Against State Govs. 10 Court applied the 11th amendment to bar suit in admiralty suits despite the textual limitations to suits "in
Wisconsin Dept. of Corrections v. Shacht 1998 919 Suits Against State Govs. 10 Issue of whether the 11th amendment is related to subject matter or personal jurisdiction is yet to be
Patsy v. Bd. Of Regents 1982 919 Suits Against State Govs. 10 Eleventh Amendment question is not jurisdictional in the sense that it must be raised and decided by this
Edelman v. Jordan 1974 919 Suits Against State Govs. 10 Eleventh Amendment matter is a jurisidctional matter
Smith v. Reeves 1900 919 Suits Against State Govs. 10 Statute that a state may waive SI as to suits for tax refunds in its own courts while maintaining its 11th
Railway Co. v. Whitton's Adm'r 1871 919 Suits Against State Govs. 10 A state statute purporting to permit enforcement of a state wrongful death action only in state court could
State agency cannot be sued on a federal claim under 1983, and in the context of state law claims, in
Lapides v. Bd of Regents 2002 920 Suits Against State Govs. 10 respect to which the state explicitly waived immunity from state-court proceedings, the state's act of
Ford Motor Co. v. Dept of Treasurty 1945 920 Suits Against State Govs. 10 Question whether particular litigation activities amounts to a waiver of SI is a question of federal law
Eleventh amendment and principles of sovereign immunity do not bar an interstate commission suit
Alabama v. North Carolina 2010 921 Suits Against State Govs. 10 ** against a state insofar as the commission makes the same claim and seeks the same relief as co-plaintiff
The court refused to address whether Congress could restrict the procedural rules of the court acting under
Kansas v. Colorado 1907 921 Suits Against State Govs. 10 its original jurisdiction, i.e. how much should be awarded in expert fees. The court agreed to just set the
Lincoln Cnty v. Luning 1890 921 Suits Against State Govs. 10 The eleventh amendment does not bar an individual suit in federal court against a county for a
Ex Parte Young 1908 922 Suits Against State Govs. 10
Eleventh Amendment does not bar a federal court actio, based on the Contracts Clause, seekign to enjoin
RR & Banking Co. v. Redwine 1952 928 Suits Against State Govs. 10 the state revenue commissioner from imposing taxes upon property claimed to be exempt pursuant to a
In Re Ayers 1887 928 Suits Against State Govs. 10 Eleventh Amendment bars award of injunctive relief, the object of which is compel specific performance of
Edelman v. Jordan 1974 929 Suits Against State Govs. 10 Eleventh Amendment prohibits federal courts from awarding monetary damages to citizens in suits against
Theory of recovery based on a longstanding and continuing breach of trsut, in violation of federal law, is
Papasan v. Allain 1986 930 Suits Against State Govs. 10 barred by the eleventh amendment, but theory that states current funding denied equal protection was
Plaintiffs request for a declaratory judgement that defendants past conduct was unlawful togeether with
Green v. Mansour 1985 930 Suits Against State Govs. 10 notice relief as in Quern, was barred by the eleventh amendment after defendants had come into
Quern v. Jordan 1979 930 Suits Against State Govs. 10 No bar to requiring defendants to aprise class memembers to state administirative proceedrues to which
Hutto v. Finney 1978 930 Suits Against State Govs. 10 Attorney's Fees: Power to impose a fine is properly treated as ancillary to the federal courts power to
Decree of relief for monetary compensation to redress failings of black school dsitrict permitted because
Milliken v. Bradley 1977 930 Suits Against State Govs. 10 this is prospective, not retrospective. Education components are designed to wipe out continuing
Ex Parte Young doctrine had become discretionary; suit against state officers who had been sued in their
Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe 1997 931 Suits Against State Govs. 10 individual capacities was barred by the eleventh amendment because state and administrative agencies
Alabama v. Pugh 1978 931 Suits Against State Govs. 10 Eleventh amendment does bar unconsented suits against the states themselves, including those in which
Verizon Maryland Inc. v. Public serv. Comm'n 2002 932 Suits Against State Govs. 10 ** Core of Young doctrine is alive and well; Young allows plaintiff to proceed against individual commissioners,
Va. Office for Protection and Advocacy v. Stewart 2011 932 Suits Against State Govs. 10 ** Sovereign immunity does not bar a suit for prospective relife brought agaisnt a state official by an agency of
Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, Inc. 2015 934 Suits Against State Govs. 10 ** No cause of action for preemption lies directly under the Supremacy Clause
Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California
2012 934 Suits Against State Govs. 10 Majority doesn't reach issue. DISSENT: No cause of action for preemption lies directly under the Supremacy
Pennhurst State Sch. And Hosp. v. Halderman 1984 935 Suits Against State Govs. 10 Eleventh amendment barrs injunctive relief based on state law
Pennhurst State Sch. And Hosp. v. Halderman 1981 935 Suits Against State Govs. 10 No basis for relief exists under one provision of federal law
Eleventh amendment does not bar an award of retroactive retirement benefits and attorney's fees under
Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer 1976 939 Suits Against State Govs. 11 Title VII, paid by the state treasury, as long as the threshold fact of congressional authorization is clearly
Parden v. Terminal Ry. 1964 939 Suits Against State Govs. 11 OVERRULED
Seminole Tribe of Fla v. Fla. 1996 940 Suits Against State Govs. 11
Pennsylvania v. Union Gas 1989 940 Suits Against State Govs. 11 Congress can abrograte state immunity from federal court suit in the exercise of its power under the
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act is unconstitutional insofar as it attempted to overrule a SCTOUS
decision interprteting the First Amendment as it applied to the States through the 14th Amendment.
Fla. Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd. V. College Savings Bank
1999 959 Suits Against State Govs. 11 Alhtough Congress' power under Section 5 extends to the creation of remedies, it does not include the
City fo Boerne v. Flores 1997 959 Suits Against State Govs. 11 Provisions of the patent remedy act are unconstitutional, that purport to strip the states of immunity and
Upheld the abrogation of state sovereign immunity in the FMLA. Congress head met its burden under
Section 5: it had satisfied the requreiment that the statement of abrogation be clearly made AND had
Nevada Dep't of Human Resources v. Hibbs 2003 960 Suits Against State Govs. 11 sufficient evidence of a pattern of constitutional violations on the part of the States in this area to warrant
Congress' abrogation of state immunity from damages actions for violations of title 1 of the ADA could not
Univ. of Ala. V. Garrett 2001 960 Suits Against State Govs. 11 be sustained because there was insufficient evidence of discrimination in violation of the 14th amendment.
Section 5 could not furnish a basis for overcoming a states immunity from private suit under the AEDA
Kimel v. Fla. Bd. Of Regents 2000 960 Suits Against State Govs. 11 because the substantive requirements the AEDA requries on state and local governments are
Rejected a motion to dismiss damages claim against Tennessee by 2 paraplegics alleging a denial of access
to the states courts in violation of Title II of the ADA because there was ample evidence of "pervasive
unequal treatment"
Tennessee v. Lane 2004 961 Suits Against State Govs. 11 **
No majority opinion - Congress has no authority under the 14th amendment to abrogate the states
Coleman v. Ct. of App. Of Maryland 2012 962 Suits Against State Govs. 11 immunity from suit under a provision of the FMLA that requried employers to provide unpaid leave for
Allegations of constitutional violations differentiated this from other Congress' section 5 powers. No one
United States v. Georgia 2006 962 Suits Against State Govs. 11 ** doubts Congress' power to create private remedies against the states for ACTUAL violations of the
Bankruptcy Clause was intended not just as a grant legislative authority to Congress, but also authorized
Central Va. Comm. College v. Katz 2006 963 Suits Against State Govs. 11 limited subordination of state sovereign immunity in the bankruptcy area. History of Bankruptcy clause
TSAC v. Hood 2004 964 Suits Against State Govs. 11 States Eleventh Amendment immunity does not apply in the context of a bankruptcy courts discharge of a
Rejected the "constructive waiver" theory as inconsistent with Seminole tribe and held that Congress lacks
College Savings Bank v. Fla. Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd.
1999 966 Suits Against State Govs. 11 power under article 1 to deem a state to have waived its sovereign immunity simply because the state
Congress can condition grants on a state's agreement to do something that Congress could not compel the
South Dakota v. Dole 1986 966 Suits Against State Govs. 11 states to do under Article 1, so long as the conditions are not coercive. Does this conflict with College
NFIB v. Sebelius 2012 967 Suits Against State Govs. 11 Threat of witholding funds related to Medicaid funds is coercive because Medicaid accounts for over 20%
Testa v. Katt 1947 967 Suits Against State Govs. 12 Federal law may sometimes require state courts to exercise jurisdiction that law purports to deny them
General Oil Co. v. Crain 1908 967 Suits Against State Govs. 12 Federal law may sometimes require state courts to exercise jurisdiction that law purports to deny them,
An injured employee of a state owned railroad could sue his employer (an arm of the state) in state court
Hilton v. S. Carolina Public Railways Comm'n 1991 969 Suits Against State Govs. 12 under FELA but was argued under assumption that Cognress cxould either abrogate the states immunity
FMC v. S. Carolina State Ports Authority 2002 977 Suits Against State Govs. 12 State sovereign immunity precldued a federal administrative agency from adjudicating the private parties
Franchise Tax Bd. Of California v. Hyatt 2003 976 Suits Against State Govs. 12 Explicitly declined to reconsider Nevada v. Hall; rejected a states' claim of immunity from being sued in the
Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority 1985 977 Suits Against State Govs. 12 Immunity from substantive regulation of employee wages does not extend to local governments.
Congress can condition grants of federal funds on state waivers of sovereign immunity, but held that
Sossamon v. Texas 2011 978 Suits Against State Govs. 12 statutory language authorizing suits for appropriate relief against a government tht accepts federal money
Alden v. Maine 1999 967-75 Suits Against State Govs. 12 Shifts Reich. State SI has to yield in that case because state is bound by the due process clause by promising
Despite its immunity from state in federal court, a state which holds out what plainly appears to be a "clear
Reich v. Collins 1994 969;975 Suits Against State Govs. 12 and certain" postdeprivation remedy for taxes collected in violation of federal law, may not declare, after
Nevada v. Hall 1979 969;975 Suits Against State Govs. 12 Constitution does not bar California from subjecting Nevada to suit in a California state court. A state is not
General Oil Co. v. Crain 1908 759 Suits Against Gov. Officials 14 SCOTUS jurisdiction to hear issues in which no federal question is involved if required to give adequate
Ward v. Love County 1920 752 Suits Against Gov. Officials 14
Upholding plaintiff's standing to challenge sex discrimination in the award of social security benefits even
Heckler v. Mathews 1984 756 Suits Against Gov. Officials 14 though a congressional mandate limited relief to reducing benefits received by others rather than
Taxpayers are entitled to a refund of excess taxes exacted from them. The right envoked is equal
Iowa-Des Moines Nat'l Bank v. Bennett 1931 756 Suits Against Gov. Officials 14 treatment, but it is well settled that a taxpayer who has been subjected to discriminatory taxaction cannot
Shifts Reich. State SI does not derive simply from the eleventh amendment, but rather isf embedded in the
Alden v. Maine 1999 757 Suits Against Gov. Officials 14 constitution and is generally co-extensive in state and federal courts. Reaffimed Reich on narrower
Due process requires that a state provide a clear and certain remedy for taxes collected in violation of
Reich v. Collins 1994 757 Suits Against Gov. Officials 14 federal law and that while the state may choose between predeprovation and postdeprovation, it must
It violates due process for a state law to require a defendant who was acquitted on appeal by clear and
Nelson v. Colorado 2017 757_s38 Suits Against Gov. Officials 14 convincing evidence in order to recover costs, fees, and restitution paid by the virtue of the subsequently
McKesson Corp. v. Division of ART 1990 757 Suits Against Gov. Officials 14 If a state requires taxpayers to pay first and obtain review of the taxes validity later, the due process clause
Reynoldsville Casket Co. v. Hyde 1995 758 Suits Against Gov. Officials 14 Harper's nonretroactivity principle should not be avoidable simply by asserting the denial of the relief was
A state tax on federal pension income that was applied retoractively is unconsitutitonal; relying on Davis v.
Michigan, retroactive relief must be afforded even in situtaitons in which the new constitutional rule had
Harper v. Va. Dept. of Taxation 1993 758 Suits Against Gov. Officials 14 not already been applied retroactively in a prior case, reasoning that the Court lacks Constitutional
Confirmed that there is a constitutional law of retroactivity that stands apart from and in some cases limits
Montgomery v. Louisiana 2017 759_s38 Suits Against Gov. Officials 14 courts remedial discretion. Does a SCOTUS case apply retroactively in a courts decision to apply remedial
Danforth v. Minnesota 2008 759_s38 Suits Against Gov. Officials 14 State courts may apply retroactivity rules that differ from those prescribed by Teague.
Dismissed the appeal on the ground there was an adequate nonfederal ground for the decision. A later
Georgia R.R. & Banking Co. v. Musgrove 1949 760 Suits Against Gov. Officials 14 SCOTUS held that in view of inadqeuate state court remedies, an injunction was available in federal courts
McCoy v. Shaw 1928 760 Suits Against Gov. Officials 14 Affirmed a state's denial of anticipitory equitable relief against a state tax on the ground that the state
Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich 1994 761 Suits Against Gov. Officials 14 Upheld Congressional preclusion of an anticipatory challenge of an administrative order claiming to violate
Ex Parte Young 1908 761 Suits Against Gov. Officials 14 Because of the harsh sanctions imposed by the state, acts are unconstitutional on their face, without regard
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics
1971 762 Suits Against Gov. Officials 14
Davis could bring a Bivens action alleging that she had been fired from her job as administrative assistant
Davis v. Passman 1979 770 Suits Against Gov. Officials 14 becaues of her sex, in violation of the equal protection clause. Litigants with no other effective means to
A federal district court had Jdx under 1331 over a claim for damages against federal officers for allegedly
Bell v. Hood 1946 770 Suits Against Gov. Officials 14 unconstitutional arrests and searches but reserved the question whether there was a good claim on the
Bush v. Lucas 1983 771 Suits Against Gov. Officials 14 In this matter of federal personel policy the elaborate remedial system constructed by Congress should not
Carlson v. Green 1980 771 Suits Against Gov. Officials 14 Damages remedy is available in an action alleging that the failure of federal prison officals to provide
Rejects a Bivens claim allegeing public health officials had shown deliberate indifference to Casteneda's
Hui v. Castaneda 2010 772 Suits Against Gov. Officials 14 medical needs while in the custody of officials. Bivens action precluded by 42 USC 233, which gives an
Schweiker v. Chilicky 1988 772 Suits Against Gov. Officials 14 Extends Bush v. Lucas. Refused to permit Bivens actions for alleged due process violation, arguing SSA
Applied special factors analysis of Bivens test to encompass the judicial manageability of particular Bivens
Wilkie v. Robbins 2007 773 Suits Against Gov. Officials 14 claims and the potential for disruption of government administration generally to prohibit Bivens claim
Special factors found in Chappell extend beyond the situtioan in which an officer-subordinate relationship
United States v. Stanley 1987 773 Suits Against Gov. Officials 14 exists and requires abstention in the inferring of Bivens actions for injuries that arise out of or are in the
Most prominent special factors case; constitutional claim of racial discrimination could not be maintained,
Chappel v. Wallace 1983 773 Suits Against Gov. Officials 14 unique disciplinary structure of military establishment and Congress' activity in the field constitute special
Bivens action did not lie for respondents claims; when asked to extend to extend Bivens to a new context,
SCOTUS asks whether judiciary is well suited, absent Cognressional action or instruction, to weigh the costs
Ziglar v. Abbassi 2017 773_s39 Suits Against Gov. Officials 14 and benefits of allowing a damages action to proceed. Special factors counsel hesitation against extending
Although Carlson extended Bivens to 8th Amendment claims, a Bivens actions is not avialable against
Minneci v. Pollard 2012 774 Suits Against Gov. Officials 14 employees of a private prison. State tort law remedies provide roughly similar incentives for potential
Ashcroft v. Iqbal 2009 774 Suits Against Gov. Officials 14 Court relied on analogies to 1983 in rejecting respondeat superior liability under Bivens.
Correctional Servs. Corp. v. Malesko 2001 774 Suits Against Gov. Officials 14 No Bivens action against a private contractor housing federal principles under contract with the Bureau of
Alexander v. Sandoval 2000 774 Suits Against Gov. Officials 14 ** Criticising Bivens as relic of the heady days in which this Court assumed Common-law powers to create
Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Meyer 1994 774 Suits Against Gov. Officials 14 Rejecting a Bivens actions against the FDIC despite a broad statutory waiver of sovereign immunity.
Monroe v. Pape 1961 987 1983 Suits 15
Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co. 1982 995 1983 Suits 15 Conduct that satisfies "under color of state law" necessarily satisfies "state action requirement" necesssary
Most executive officials have a qualified immunity that shields them from damages liability unless their
Harlow v. Fitzgerald 1982 996 1983 Suits 15 conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would
Tenney v. Brandhove 1951 996 1983 Suits 15 Officials sued under 1983 in their personal capacity may avail themselves to official immunity doctrines
Lewis v. Clark 2017 996_s49 1983 Suits 15 In a suit against an employee of native american tribe in an individual capacity, tribal sovereign immunity
Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs. 1978 998 1983 Suits 15 Held that Monroe v. Pape misread the legislative history of 1983; Congress did intend to include local
City of Newport v. Fact Concerts Inc. 1981 1000 1983 Suits 15 Municipalites may not be held liable under 1983 for punitive damages.
A municipality sued under Monell for violations committed by its officials does not have a qualified
Owen v. City of Independence 1980 1000 1983 Suits 15 immunity from damages liability under 1983 even if it can show the officials themselves would be entitled
State law determines who is a policy making official for purposes of suit under 1983. The mere fact that
City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik 1988 1001 1983 Suits 15 policy makers deligate discretion does not make the deligatee a policy maker. Later affirmed in Jett v. Dallas
Confirme Praprotnik, only mayor and alderman had decisionmaking power as defined by state law, The
Jet v. Dallas Independent School District 1989 1001 1983 Suits 15 mere fact that policymakers had delgated to directors discretion to act did not give the subrodinate officials
Pembauer v. City of Cincinnati 1986 1001 1983 Suits 15 A single decision of a high official (like cnty prosecutor, who had authority under state law) was an
Connick v. Thompson 2011 1002 1983 Suits 15 Court rejects claim of local government liability predicated on a failure to train theory, District Attorney
McMillian v. Monroe Cnty. 1997 1002 1983 Suits 15 Under Alabama law, county sheriff acting in the law enforcemnt capacity, represent their state, and not
Municipal liability for inadequate training is permitted by 1983 but only where the failure to train amounts
City of Canton v. Harris 1989 1002 1983 Suits 15 to "deliberate indifference" with the rights of persons with whom government employees come into
Reversed a 1983 damages action for plaintiff noting the absence of any claim that action by a policy making
Bd. Of Cnty. Commissioners v. Brown 1997 1003 1983 Suits 15 official directly violated federal law or deprivation of fedearl rights. In absence of such a claim plaintiff must
Inyo Cnty v. Paiute-Shoshone Indians 2003 1004 1983 Suits 15 Tribes do not count as persons who may sue under 1983.
Hafer v. Melo 1991 1004 1983 Suits 15 Cour rejects defendants claims that Will bars damages actions against state officers sued in their personal
Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police 1989 1004 1983 Suits 15 Neither a state nor a state official acting in an official capacity is a person within the meaning of 1983, at
Quern v. Jordan 1979 1004 1983 Suits 15 Cognress did nto clearly manifest an intention in 1983 to override the states 11th amendment immunity.
A heightened pleading standard cannot be squared with the liberal system of notice pleading established
Leatherman v. Tarrant Cnty. Narcotics Intelligence 1993 1005 1983 Suits 15 by the FRCP. A number of courts used a heightened pleading standard to survive a 12b6 motion to dismiss
Allen v. McCurry 1980 1005 1983 Suits 15 Normal preclusion rules apply in 1983 actions of a prior state court proceeding.
Maine v. Thiboutot 1980 1005 1983 Suits 15 State courts have concurrent jurisdiction in actions under 1983.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal 2009 1006 1983 Suits 15 Plausibility pleading: A court must accept as true all the allegations contained in a complaint, but these are
Hughes v. Rowe 1980 1008 1983 Suits 15 Defendants may not automatically recover attorney's fees whenever they prevail in a 1983 action, but only
Maher v. Gagne 1980 1008 1983 Suits 15 Absent special circumstances, the prevailing party language under 1988 applies to plaintiffs whos litigation
 1983 is subordinate to writ of habeas corpus when the remedies would overlap (HC comes first). 1983 may
Heck v. Humphrey 1994 1009 1983 Suits 15 not be resorted to if the direct or indirect effect of granting releif would be to invalidate an existing state
Maine v. Thiboutot 1980 1009 1983 Suits 15 The complaint, which asserted no denial of equal rights, asserted a good claim under 1983. 1983 should not
Court upheld Golden states ability to sue under 1983 for injunction and compensatory relief for
Golden State Transit Corp. v. City of Los Angeles 1989 1012 1983 Suits 15 interference with a federally protected bargaining relationship. Availability of remedy turns on whether
City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams 2005 1014 1983 Suits 15 Congress' provision of expressed statutory remedies barred a 1983 action for violation of a federal statute.
1983 Suits brought by tennets in federally funded public housing project against a municipal housing
Wright v. Roanoke Redev. & Hous. Auth. 1987 1014 1983 Suits 15 authority for violating federal statutes could go forward. Federal law created enforceable rights in the
Middlesex Cnty. Sewage Auth. V. Nat. Sea Clammers Assn.
1981 1014 1983 Suits 15 Plaintiffs could not obtain remedies other than those expressly provided in the two regulatory statutes.
Fitzgerald v. Barnstable Sch. Comm'n 2009 1015 1983 Suits 15 Title IX of the education amendments does not preclude a 1983 action alleging unconstitutional gender
Smith v. Robinson 1984 1015 1983 Suits 15 ONLY CASE that holds that statutory cause of actions impliedly precluded constitutional claims under 1983
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly 2007 1006-07 1983 Suits 15 Plausiblity pleading
Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe 2002 1010-11 1983 Suits 15 1983 Action is foreclosed because the relevant FERPA provisions created no personal rights enforceable
Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, Inc. 2012 1012-13 1983 Suits 15 The supremacy clause does not create a cause of action under 1983 and characterized the ability to sue to
Kentucky v. Graham 1985 996; 998 1983 Suits 15 Attorney's fees in a personal capacity action can awarded against the officer, not against the government
Ashcroft v. Iqbal 2009 996-97 1983 Suits 15 No supervisor liability is available in Bivens or 1983 actions and that each government offical, title not
Harlow v. Fitzgerald 1982 1030 Official Immunity 16
Forrester v. White 1988 1039 Official Immunity 16 Judges have only qualified immunity when sued for non-judicial actions such as firing a probation officer
Butz v. Economou 1978 1039 Official Immunity 16 Executive officials enjoy absolute official immiunity for actions taken in a judicial capacity
Imbler v. Pachtman 1976 1040 Official Immunity 16 Characterized Tenny as establishing that 1983 is to be read in harmony with general principles of tort
Pierson v. Ray 1967 1040 Official Immunity 16 Legislative history of the civil rights act does not support the notion that Congress meant to abrogate the
Tenney v. Brandhove 1951 1040 Official Immunity 16 Legislative history of the civil rights act does not support the notion that Congress meant to abrogate the
Spalding v. Vilas 1896 1040 Official Immunity 16 Executive actions are entitled to some form of discretionary immunity for actions of damages
Ziglar v. Abbassi 2017 1040_s50 Official Immunity 16 Officials sued for conspiracy to violate equal protection rights under 1985(3) were entitled to qualified
Appropriate inquiry for determining the scope of officials immunity as follows: If an official was accorded
Tower v. Glover 1984 1041 Official Immunity 16 immunity from tort actions at common law when the Civil Rights Act was enacted in 1871, the Court next
Governemnt officials as a class cannot be totally exempt by virtue of some absolute immunity from liability
Scheur v. Rhodes 1974 1041 Official Immunity 16 under 1983's terms. At the same time, 1983 annot be interpreted to overrule common law doctrines
Mireles v. Waco 1991 1043 Official Immunity 16 Extending absolute immunity to a state judge who allegedly ordered police officers to seize with excessive
Stump v. Sparkman 1978 1043 Official Immunity 16 Judge was aboslutely immune after approving an ex parte petition filed by parents of 15yo girl to have her
Bradley v. Fisher 1871 1043 Official Immunity 16 The only way to circumvent judicail immunity is to show the judge was acting in the clear absence of all
The defendant's court appearance and his presentation of evidence at a hearing were protected by
Burns v. Reed 1991 1044 Official Immunity 16 absolute immunity but that his acts of providing advice to the police were subject to a qualified immunity
Briscoe v. LaHue 1983 1044 Official Immunity 16 Jurors and witnesses in judicial proceedings enjoy absolute immunity
Court found that prosecutorial immunity was well established at common law, and that absolute rather
Imbler v. Pachtman 1976 1044 Official Immunity 16 than qualified immunity was appropriate in 1983 action allegedly that a state prosecutor knowingly
Polk Cnty v. Dodson 1981 1044 Official Immunity 16 Public defenders do not ordinarily act under color of state law and thus likely to be liable under 1983 if they
Absolute prosecutorial immunity bars claims based on the prosecutions non-disclosure of impeachment
Van de Kamp v. Goldstein 2009 1045 Official Immunity 16 material which was allegedly due to the defendant's failrue to (1) train and supervise prosecutors and (2)
A prosecutor who allegedly filed a false document in support of an arrest warrant was not entiteld to
Kalina v. Fletcher 1997 1045 Official Immunity 16 absolute immunity from suit becaseu in filing the prosecutor was acting as a complaining witness, not as a
Buckley v. Fitzsimmons 1993 1045 Official Immunity 16 Prosecutors are entitled to only qualified immunity with respect to the press conference and alleged
Bogan v. Scott-Harris 1998 1046 Official Immunity 16 Local legislators are entitled to the same absolute immunity from 1983 civil libability as are state and
Nixon v. Fitzgerald 1982 1046 Official Immunity 16 President entitled to absolute immunity for actions within the scope of official duties
House members responsible for preparing a committee report were absolutely immune in a suit for
Doe v. McMillan 1973 1046 Official Immunity 16 invasion of privacy filed by school children identified in the report though the superintendent of documents
Gravel v. United States 1972 1046 Official Immunity 16 Speech and Debate clause shields all legislative acts and provides absolute immunity. Extends to aides in
Kilbourn v. Thompson 1880 1046 Official Immunity 16 Federal legislators who had voted for a resolution voting for a plaintiff to be imprisoned for contempt of
Hutchinson v. Proxmire 1979 1046 Official Immunity 16 Senator not immune from a defamation action arising out of his press release award for wasteful federal
A Ninth Circuit ruling that a defendant had violated a constitutional right is not mere dictum and may be
Camreta v. Green 2011 1047 Official Immunity 16 clearly established law within the circuit in subsequent cases. District Courts, as opposed to appellate
Clinton v. Jones 1997 1047 Official Immunity 16 Denied a claim of broad presidential temporary immunity from civil damages actions relating to events
United States v. Lanier 1997 1047 Official Immunity 16 It is possible for a right to be clearly established even in the absence of a supreme court decision so holding
Ashcroft v. al-Kidd 2011 1048 Official Immunity 16 ** Dictum in a single district court decision could not clearly establish that a course of action by the attorney
Saucier v. Katz 2001 1048 Official Immunity 16
Availability of qualified immunity should turn not on the general right but on the application to particular
Anderson v. Creighton 1987 1048 Official Immunity 16 facts. THE CONTOURS OF THE RIGHT MUST BE SUFFICIENTLY CLEAR THAT A REASONABLE OFFICIAL WOULD
Reichel v. Howards 2012 1048 Official Immunity 16 In suit upholding qualified immunity for Secret service, the issue is wehther was a clearly establisehd right
Defendant school officials violated the Fourth amendment when tey strip searched middle school student
Safford Unified Sch. Dist. V. Redding 2009 1049 Official Immunity 16 without adequate reason. But qualifeid immunity exists because because lower courts diverges on how
In thinking about diverging views, think about: Five justice majority finds defendant had violated clearly
Groh v. Ramirez 2004 1049 Official Immunity 16 establisehd rights, even though Scalia and Thomas concluded that defendants did not violate the
Hope v. Pelzer 2002 1049 Official Immunity 16 Rejects the idea that the facts of preivous cases must be "materially similar" to the case at hand for
New Jersey v. TLO 1985 1049 Official Immunity 16 SUGGESTED DELETION
Messerschmidt v. Millender 2012 1051 Official Immunity 16 The fact that a neutral magistrate judge has issued a warrant is a legally relevant indicator that officers
Officer is not absolutely immune because he relied on the judgement of a judicial officer in finding that
Malley v. Briggs 1986 1051 Official Immunity 16 probable cause had existed an hence issuing the warrant. Can still hold officer liable If warrant application
Lower court judges should be permitted to exercise their sound discretion in deciding which of the two
Pearson v. Callahan 2009 1052 Official Immunity 16 prongs the qualified immunity analysis should be addressed first in light of the particular circumstances in
Camreta v. Green 2011 1053 Official Immunity 16 "In general, courts should think hard, and then think hard again, before turning small cases into large ones"
Oyler v. Nat. Guard Ass'n 1984 1055 Official Immunity 16 7th Cir.
Rule in Martinez applies even in actions that fall within the federal courts jurisdiction
Martinez v. California 1980 1055 Official Immunity 16 Immunity of state officials in actions based on state law is governed by state law - absent wholy arbitrary
Barr v. Mateo 1959 1055 Official Immunity 16 Federal common law establishes a shield of absolute immunity for fedearl officials from damages for
S. Ct. Va. V. Consumers Union of the Us 1980 1056 Official Immunity 16 Extends immunity from injunctive relief to state officials acting in a legislative capacity
Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund 1975 1056 Official Immunity 16 Suit for injunctive relief against Senate Committee over Vietnam war was barred by Speech and Debate
In view of the extraordinary nature of a civil contempt sanction against local officials, courts should porceed
Spallone v. United States (Yonkers Litigation) 1990 1057 Official Immunity 16 with contempt sanctions against the city itself. Only if that approach fails to produce compliance should
Court upheld injunction and finds judicial immunity does not bar suits for prospective relief. OVERRULED BY
Pullman v. Allen 1984 1058 Official Immunity 16 The Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1996 (Amends 1983 to bar sutis against judicial officers for
SCOTUS dismisses action attempting to restrain president from executing provision of law. Court discusses
Mississippi v. Johnson 1866 1058 Official Immunity 16 concerns over unreviewable executive discretion AND court creating a direct conflict between president
Franklin v. Massachussetts 1992 1059 Official Immunity 16 In general the Court has no jurisdiction of a bill to enjoin the President in the performance of his or her
United States v. Nixon 1974 1059 Official Immunity 16 Requires the President to respond to a grand jury subpeona. Court stressed the special importance of the
Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer 1952 1060 Official Immunity 16 Supreme Court affirmed a decision to order Secretary of Commerce to terminate a seizure of the nation's
Mitchell v. Forsyth 1985 1044; 46 Official Immunity 16 Prosecutorial immunity extends only to prosecutorial functions related to courtroom function and not to
Kline v. Burke Construction Co. 1922 1061 Judicial Federalism 18
Court of appeals reversed a salty of a diversity action for personal injuries, even though a virtually identical
Burns v. Watler 1991 1063 Judicial Federalism 18 1st Cir.state court action, field by plaintiff one day after filing the federal action, even though federal action was
Atlantic Coast Line RR v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engs
1970 1068 Judicial Federalism 18
Mitchum v. Foster 1972 1073 Judicial Federalism 18
Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. V. United States 1079 Judicial Federalism 18 The district court should have declined jurisdiction in favor of a pending state action that was analogized to
 Implied exception to anti-injunction statute by declaring that the court (state or federal) that first assumes
Hagan v. Lucas 1836 1079 Judicial Federalism 18 jurisdiction over property may exercise that jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court. No supreme
Toucey v. NY Life Ins. Co. 1941 1080 Judicial Federalism 18 Federal courts lacked authority to enjoin state relitigation of issues settled in a prior federal action.
Wells Fargo v. Taylor 1920 1080 Judicial Federalism 18 Sustained the power of federal courts to enjoin litigants from enforcing judgements fraudulently obtained
Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco 1987 1081 Judicial Federalism 18 Concurring judgement stated that a judgement creditor's invocation of state post-judgement collection
Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co. 1982 1081 Judicial Federalism 18 Though a private party's mere invocation of state legal procedures was not action under color of law, the ex
Henry v. First Nat. Bank 1979 1081 Judicial Federalism 18 5th Cir.
Issuance of state court injunction surely constitutes action under color of federal law
NLRB v. Nash-Finch Co 1971 1081 Judicial Federalism 18 Court extended Leiter rationale to an application for an injunction by an indenpedent federal agency.
Recognized an additional exception for injunctions sought by the US; the policy of preventing conflict
Leiter Minerals Inc. v. United States 1957 1081 Judicial Federalism 18 between federal courts is a more compelling interest in litigation between private parties than when the US
Maine v. Thiboutot 1980 1082 Judicial Federalism 18 1983 provides a remedy for violations of federal rights conferred not only by the constitution, but by
Court would not necessarily apply Mitchum's broad consturcted of the expressly authorized exception to
Vendo Co. v. Lektro-Vend Corp. 1977 1082 Judicial Federalism 18 other federal statutes. Unlike 1983, Clayton Act could be given its intended scope without a stay of state
Affirmed refusal of denial of injunction; no statute authorized the union to file in federal court, so the
Amalgamated Clothing Workers v. Richman Bros. 1955 1083 Judicial Federalism 18 federal injunction was no ancillary to an independently based, ongoing proceeding, and the Court refused
Affirmed a federal court injunction against enforcement of state court injunctions on the grounds that
Capital Serv. Inc. v. NLRB 1954 1083 Judicial Federalism 18 order was necessary in aid of jurisdition; to make effective its statutory power to seek injunctions the
In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig. 2002 1084 Judicial Federalism 18 3d Cir.Lower courts have read the "in aid of jurisdiciton" broadly to permit anti-suit injunctions in class actions
Ret. Sys. Of Ala. V. JP Morgan & Chase 2004 1085 Judicial Federalism 18 2d Cir.Most lower courts have concluded that in most circumstances federal courts have no authority under
Syngenta Crop Protection Inc. v. Henson 2002 1085 Judicial Federalism 18 All writs act is not a grant of jurisdiction and thus cannot confer original jurisdiction required to support
Upheld an anti suit injucntion to adi the district courts jurisdiction of class settlement stating that in effect
In re Baldwin-United Corp. 1985 1085 Judicial Federalism 18 2d Cir.the district court had before it a class action proceeding so far andvanced that it was the virtual equivalent
Two flaws in district courts conclusion that relitigation exception applied. A) District court had not
Smith v. Bayer Corp. 2011 1086 Judicial Federalism 18 deteremined whether class could be certified under state (v. federal) law. B) Since no federal class action
2283 does not preclude federal court injunction against state court action insofar as it barred religation of
Chick Kam Choo Decision 1988 1086 Judicial Federalism 18 the state law claim, which the fedreal court had previously held not to be actionable when it determined
Overturned federal ct injunction against state court proceeding noting that 1738 (full faith and credit
Parsons Steel v. First Ala. Bank 1986 1087 Judicial Federalism 18 statute) generally requires a federal ct to a give a state court judgement the same effect it would have
Appears to hold in the alternative that when state grand jury indictments are returned after the filing of a
Dombrowski v. Pfister 1965 1087 Judicial Federalism 18 federal complaint but before injunctive relief is issued, no state proceedings are pending within the
Noting SCOTUS of virtual representation, a doctrine developed by lower courts that would subject non
parties to issue and claim preclusion where they have a sufficiently close relationship to the parties in a
Taylor v. Sturgell 2008 1088 Judicial Federalism 18 prior suit. Due process requires at a minimum that interest of the nonparty and representative be aligned
Cnty. Of Imperial v. Munoz 1980 1088 Judicial Federalism 18 Reversed a grant of preliminary injunctive relief from a state court injunction relying on At. Coast line in
Lynch v. Houshold Finance Corp. 1972 1088 Judicial Federalism 18 Prejudgement garnishment was not a proceeding in state court and hence could be enjoined by a federal
Upheld federal court injunction that barred a state court order requiring state agency to enforce a state
Hale v. Bimco 1939 1088 Judicial Federalism 18 statute, rejecting the view that the AIA in effect bars federal suit by strangers to a state court proceeding
Laid foundation for general doctrine that a plaintiff may not sue in federal court for redress of allegedly
Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line 1908 1094 Pullman Abstention 19 unlawful state action without first invoking or exhausting state administrative, as opposed to judicial,
Porter v. Investors' Syndicate 1932 1095 Pullman Abstention 19 A legislative remedy in a state district court against an administrative order under a state blue sky law must
Withdrew its former opinion and overruled the plea of res judicata in light of an intervening state court
Oklahoma Packing Co. v. Oklahoma G&E Co. 1940 1096 Pullman Abstention 19 opinion characterizing the review as legislative. Characterization of state proceedings is defined by the
Limit of the Prentis doctrine; held that judicial stage railroads had a right to restort to the federal courts at
Bacon v. Rutland RR 1914 1096 Pullman Abstention 19 once. If a state court acts in a legislative capacity the federal court will have jurisdiction, and the state
Patsy v. Bd. Of Regents 1982 1097 Pullman Abstention 19 Exhaustion of state administration remedies is not requried in 1983 suits before gets a federal court
McNeese v. Bd. Of Education 1963 1097 Pullman Abstention 19 Exhaustion of state administration remedies is not requried in 1983 suits before gets a federal court
When a state administrative agency acting in a judicial capacity makes factual findings after parties have
Univ. of Ten. V. Elliott 1986 1098 Pullman Abstention 19 fair opportunity to litigate, federal court in 1983 action must give the findings the same preclusive effect
Using principles of comity, required federal courts to decline jurisdiction in suits seeking a damages remedy
Fair Assessment in Real Estate Ass'n v. McNary 1981 1098 Pullman Abstention 19 for state taxation whenever the state provides a plain, adequate and complete remedy. Characterized as
Jones v. Bock 2007 1099 Pullman Abstention 19 Court of appeals had overstepped its authority by errecting proccedural barriers to prisoner suits that went
Porter v. Nussle 2002 1099 Pullman Abstention 19 Exhuastion requirement is applicable to all inmate suits based on conditions of prison life, including
Booth v. Churner 2001 1099 Pullman Abstention 19 One exhausts process not forms of relief.
Nat'l Private Truck Council v. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n 1995 1099 Pullman Abstention 19 Builds on Fair Assessment by holding 1983 does not authorized equitable or injunctive relief against state
Ross v. Blake 2016 1099_s54 Pullman Abstention 19 Rejected the rule adopted by some circuits that exhaustion requriement of PLRA is not absolute and need
Williamson Cnty. Regional Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank
1985 1099 Pullman Abstention 19 Taking Clause challenge to the action of a zoning board was premature (not ripe) because the plaintiff had
When judicial review is authorized by the APA a litigant who as exhausted all administrative remedies
Darby v. Cisneros 1993 1100 Pullman Abstention 19 expressly prescribed by the governing reg. statute or by agency rules has a right under 10c of the APA to
Reversed state supreme court dismissal of 1983 suit due to plaintiffs noncompliance with state statute
reasoning that given the evil at which the federal civil rights legislation was aimed there is simply no reason
Felder v. Casey 1988 1100 Pullman Abstention 19 to suppose that Congress intended that those who sought to vindicate federal rights in state courts could
Parratt v. Taylor 1981 1100 Pullman Abstention 19 Adequate post-deprivation judicial remedies can sometimes provide all the process that is constitutionally
Railroad Comm'n of Texas v. Pullman Co. 1941 1101 Pullman Abstention 19
Federal court action to prevent state commission from interfering with fare increase; action was filed only a
Gilchrist v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co. 1929 1103 Pullman Abstention 19 few hours before commission sued in state court to compel compliance with existing fare. SCOTUS
If an uncontroverted question of state law was presented in an action that also presented a federal
Siler v. Louisville & N RR 1909 1104 Pullman Abstention 19 constitutional issue, a federal district court should decided the state question first under pendant
Cohens v. Virginia 1821 1105 Pullman Abstention 19 Petition for writ of error in criminal case is entirely defensive and seeks no affirmative relief; this is not a
Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co. 1996 1107 Pullman Abstention 19 Federal courts have the power to dismiss or remand cases based on abstention principles only where the
Clay v. Sun Ins. Office Ltd. 1960 1107 Pullman Abstention 19 Ordered abstention in actions at law, not equity, in cases involign both difficult state law issues and
Propper v. Clark 1949 1107 Pullman Abstention 19 Court made clear that abstention was innapropriate to avoid decision of nonconstitutional federal issues
Spector Motor Serv. Inc. v. McLaughlin 1944 1107 Pullman Abstention 19 Inititially after Pullman, SCOTUS requried abstention on unsettled state law issues when resolution of those
Pearson v. Callahan 2009 1109 Pullman Abstention 19 Lower federal courts have discretion to determine whether a constitutional right was violated before
Abstention is innapropriate for cases wehre statutes are justifiably attacked on their face as abridging free
City of Houston v. Hill 1987 1109 Pullman Abstention 19 expression and that delay of state-court proceedings might itself effect the impersisble chilling of the very
Babbitt v. United Farm Workers Union 1979 1109 Pullman Abstention 19 Court declined to hear first amendment challenges to state statutes before states had chance to construe
Pennhurst State Sch. And Hosp. v. Halderman 1984 1109 Pullman Abstention 19 The eleventh amendment denies courts jurisdiction to award injunctive relief against state officials based
Harrison v. NAACP 1959 1109 Pullman Abstention 19 Found Pullman abstention doctrine applicable to cases under 1983.
Brockett v. Spokane Arcades Inc. 1985 1111 Pullman Abstention 19 Mere presence of judicailly unconstrued state law does not automatically require abstention.
Upheld lower court decision invalidating under the 14th amendment DPC a state statute providign for the
Wisconsin v. Constantineau 1971 1111 Pullman Abstention 19 public posting, without notice or hearing to the person affected, of the name of any person who's excessive
Vacated and remanded with directions to abstain, emphasizing that state constitutional provisions have
Reetz v. Bozanich 1970 1111 Pullman Abstention 19 never been interpreted by state court, and that management of fish resoucres was a matter of great state
Baggett v. Bullitt 1964 1111 Pullman Abstention 19 Uncertainty in the state law must be such that construction by the state court might obviate the need for
Examining Bd. Of Engineers v. Flores de Otero 1976 1112 Pullman Abstention 19 Court refused to abstain simply because a challenged Puerto Rico statute might violate PR's constitutional
Ordered abstention to obtain a state court construction of the state constitution; Challenged statute was
Harris Cnty. Commr's Court v. Moore 1975 1112 Pullman Abstention 19 part of an integreated scheme of related constitutional provisions, statute, and regs and where the scheme
Harman v. Forssenius 1965 1113 Pullman Abstention 19 Cited protracted delay as an equitable factor supporting a refucal to abstain in particular cases.
Harris Cnty. Commr's Court v. Moore 1975 1114 Pullman Abstention 19 Court ordered abstention in a case arising in state court in view of Delaney case; ruled district court should
In some cases, plaintiff may only be abel to seek a state declaratory judgement limited to the precise issue
United Serv. Life Ins. Co. v. Delaney 1964 1114 Pullman Abstention 19 5th Cir.
on which the abstention context, but there is no assurance that state courts will enteratin an action in this
 SCOTUS vacated district court ruling that statute was constitutional following state courts construction of
Government & Civic Employees Organizing Committeee v. Windsor
1957 1114 Pullman Abstention 19 statute since state supreme court was not asked to interpret the statute in light of the constittuional
Preclusion doctrine barred plaintiffs efforts to revive federal claims in federal court after they had advanced
San Remo Hotel LP v. City & Cnty of San Francisco 2005 1115 Pullman Abstention 19 broad facial challenges under the state constitution under the same legal theory that supported their
England v. Louisiana State Bd. Of Medical Examiners 1964 1115 Pullman Abstention 19 Parties bound by state court determination only if the party did in fact elect to seek a complete and final
Fiore v. White 1999 1117 Pullman Abstention 19 Supreme Court certified a question to state supreme court.
A federal court should not have ruled on the constitutionality of an Arizona constitutional amendment
Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona 1997 1117 Pullman Abstention 19 prescribing that the state shall act in English without certifying the question of the amendment's meaning
Lehman Bros. v. Schein 1974 1117 Pullman Abstention 19 Court endorsed certification option for cases invovling difficult question of state law but no federal
Ordered abstention in actions at law, not equity, in cases involign both difficult state law issues and
Clay v. Sun Ins. Office Ltd. 1960 1117 Pullman Abstention 19 potentially avoidable federal constitutional issues. First instance of supreme court ordering federal court to
Federal class action after pending state court action; challenging the same law under the florida
Askew v. Hargrave 1971 1110; 14 Pullman Abstention 19 Constitution. Court remanded for consdieration whether to abstain noting that the claims under the Florida
Younger v. Harris 1971 1127 Younger Abstention 20
Denied equitable relief; ordered dismissal for want of equity of a class action, seekign to restrain, as a
Douglas v. City of Jeannette 1943 1137 Younger Abstention 20 violation of the 1st amendment, their prosecution, under a city ordinance. Court noted leaving to state
Accepts Douglas; abstention doctrine is innapropriate for cases where statutes are justifiably attacked on
Dombrowski v. Pfister 1965 1138 Younger Abstention 20 their fact abridging free expression or as applied for the purpose of discouraging protected activities.
Stefanelli v. Minard 1951 1139 Younger Abstention 20 The equity rule of Douglas applied a fortiori where the request is to inervene peacemeal to try collateral
Samuels v. Mackell 1971 1140 Younger Abstention 20 Younger doctrine applies not only to injunctive but also declaratyr reliefe agianst a pending state criminal
Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez 1963 1140 Younger Abstention 20 Court refused to equate declaratory and injunctive relief for the purpose of the three judge court
Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Huffman 1943 1140 Younger Abstention 20 Refused federal declaratory relief against the imposition of state taxes. Also held that tax injunction act
Allen v. McCurry 1980 1141 Younger Abstention 20 State court adjudication has full res judicata effect in subsequent federal court proceedings, including those
Court refused to find bad faith could be inferred from the innocence of the accused and framing the
Cameron v. Johnson 1968 1141 Younger Abstention 20 question as whether enforcement was undertaken with no expectation of convictions, but only to
New Orleans Pub. Serv. Inc. v. Council of New Orleans1989 1142 Younger Abstention 20 An allegation that requires further factual inquiry can hardly be deemed to have satisfied the test for
Trainor v. Hernandez 1977 1142 Younger Abstention 20 If the lower court's statement constituted a finding of patently and flagrantly unconsittutional statutes, it
Dictrict court's vague and conclusory findings concerning the pattern of seizure did not make out bad faith
Hicks v. Miranda 1975 1142 Younger Abstention 20 and harrassement since each step was authorized by judicial order, and even a showing of error would not
Watson v. Buck 1941 1142 Younger Abstention 20 Court refused to enjoin an entire statute when parts could be severed or the legislation could be given a
Gilliam v. Foster 1996 1143 Younger Abstention 20 4th Cir.
Exception to Younger principle; permitted for cases in which plaintiffs seek to enjoin state prosecutions on
Ohio Civil Rights Comm'n v. Dayton Christian Sch. 1986 1143 Younger Abstention 20 Plaintiffs waiver of equitable restraint argument misconcieved the nature of Younger. Waiver must be
Ohio Bureau of Employment Servs. V. Hodory 1977 1143 Younger Abstention 20 If the state voluntarily chooses to submit to a federal forum principles of comity do not demand that the
Gibson was an extraordinary circumstance; other than bad faith or patent unconsitutionality, but concluded
Kugler v. Helfant 1975 1143 Younger Abstention 20 case was distinguishable because plaintiff in Kugler claimed that he could not obtain a fair hearing in state
Court refused to apply Younger to require deference to admisitrative proceedings before a state agency,
Gibson v. Berryhill 1973 1143 Younger Abstention 20 that the lower court had found to be incompetent by reason of bias to adjudicate the issues pending before
Steffel v. Thompson 1974 1144 Younger Abstention 21
Accepts Douglas; abstention doctrine is innapropriate for cases where statutes are justifiably attacked on
Dombrowski v. Pfister 1965 1155 Younger Abstention 21 their fact abridging free expression or as applied for the purpose of discouraging protected activities.
Upheld permenant injunction barring state officials from enforcing against the plaintiffs a state law making
Wooley v. Maynard 1977 1156 Younger Abstention 21 it a misdemeanor to obcure the phrase "live free or die". Reasoning that federal actions sought to enjoin
Requirements of irreparable injury and of no adequate remedy at law were satisfied when enfrocement
Morales v. TWA 1992 1157 Younger Abstention 21 actions were imminent, at least when repetitive penalties attach to continuing or repeated violations and
Younger bars federal relief when state is party to the proceeding and the proceeding is both in aid of, and
closely related to criminal statutes. Court also rules that a party in Pursue's position must exhaust his state
Huffman v. Pursue Ltd. 1975 1157 Younger Abstention 21 appellate remedies before seeking a remedy in district in court unless he can bring himself within one of
Ellis v. Dyson 1975 1158 Younger Abstention 21 Reverses and remands appellate court ruling that federal plaintiffs not entitled to relief absent a showing of
Upheld permenant injunction barring state officials from enforcing against the plaintiffs a state law making
Wooley v. Maynard 1977 1158 Younger Abstention 21 it a misdemeanor to obcure the phrase "live free or die". Reasoning that federal actions sought to enjoin
Hicks v. Miranda 1975 1158 Younger Abstention 21
A federal court cannot grant declaratory or injunctive relief to a plaintiff with regard to the constitutionality
Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc. 1975 1162 Younger Abstention 21 of a law when a state criminal proceeding is pending against the plaintiff even if similar plaintiffs not
Hawaii Housing Auth. V. Midkiff 1984 1162 Younger Abstention 21 Younger does not bar consdieration of a federal action seeking injunctive relief against a state land reform
Roe v. Wade 1973 1163 Younger Abstention 21 Under Younger, request for prospective relief was barred in view of pending prosecution.
Edgar v. MITE Corp 1982 1164 Younger Abstention 21 Effect of premlinary injunction is an issue to be decided when and if the state official charged with
Oklahoma Operation co. v. Love 1920 1164 Younger Abstention 21 Court unanimously affirmed preliminary injunction against confiscatory rate regulation.
Cline v. Frink Dairy co. 1927 1164 Younger Abstention 21 Affirmed the issuance of final injunctive relief against the insitution of future prosecution, even though a
Younger bars federal relief when state is party to the proceeding and the proceeding is both in aid of, and
closely related to criminal statutes. Court also rules that a party in Pursue's position must exhaust his state
Huffman v. Pursue Ltd. 1975 1165 Younger Abstention 21 appellate remedies before seeking a remedy in district in court unless he can bring himself within one of
Noting SCOTUS disapproval of virtual representation, a doctrine developed by lower courts that would
subject non parties to issue and claim preclusion where they have a sufficiently close relationship to the
Taylor v. Sturgell 2008 1165 Younger Abstention 21 parties in a prior suit. Due process requires at a minimum that interest of the nonparty and representative
Trainor v. Hernandez 1977 1166 Younger Abstention 21 Extends Younger more broadly to encompass all civil enforcement actions brought by the state.
Juidice v. Vail 1977 1166 Younger Abstention 21 Court held Younger abstention to be justified by important state interests even though the state had not
Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco 1987 1166 Younger Abstention 21 Court held Younger abstention to be justified by important state interests even though the state had not
An allegation that requires further factual inquiry can hardly be deemed to have satisfied the test for
New Orleans Pub. Serv. Inc. v. Council of New Orleans1989 1166 Younger Abstention 21 flagarant unlawfulness for purposes of a threshold abstention determination. Overall emphasizes the
Quotes NOLA case as having recongized three categories to which Younger applies (1) Criminal
Sprint Comms. V. Jacobs 2013 1167 Younger Abstention 21 proseuctions, (2) Civil proceedings brought by a state, and (3) Civil proceedings involving certain orders
Court notes under state law, local committee was arm of New Jersey state court, and judicial proceedings
Middlesex County Ethics Comm. V. Garden State Bar Ass'n
1982 1168 Younger Abstention 21 were disciplinary in nature. Court held it could take into account the fact that NJ Supreme court had
Ohio Civil Rights Comm'n v. Dayton Christian Sch. 1986 1168 Younger Abstention 21 Younger bars intereference with a pending state admistrative proceeding invovling sufficiently important
Quotes NOLA case as having recongized three categories to which Younger applies (1) Criminal
Sprint Comms. V. Jacobs 2013 1169 Younger Abstention 21 proseuctions, (2) Civil proceedings brought by a state, and (3) Civil proceedings involving certain orders
Rizzo v. Goode 1976 1170 Younger Abstention 21 There is no justification for equitable relief against the named defendants since there was no showing that
Juidice v. Vail 1977 1170 Younger Abstention 21 Court held Younger abstention to be justified by important state interests even though the state had not
Allee v. Medrano 1974 1170 Younger Abstention 21 Two years before Rizzo; approves district court decree barring certain law enforcement actions; observing
Neale v. Pfeiffer 1981 1193 Habeas 22 6th cirWrit can only issue when a private custodian acts pursusant to a court decree or other government
Lehman v. Lycoming County Children's Servs. Agency 1982 1193 Habeas 22 Federal habeas jurisdiction does not embrace a petitition challenging an ajduication terminating parental
Jurney v. MacCracken 1935 1194 Habeas 22 Power of Senate or order arrest for contempt of a committee.
Aamer v. Obama 2014 1194 Habeas 22 DC Cir.DC Circuit precedant that one in custody may challenge the conditions of his confinement in a petition for
Ex Parte Bollman 1807 1195 Habeas 22 Important Marshall ruling; federal court power to issue writ of habeas corpus must be conferred by statute.
Ex Parte Yarborough 1884 1195 Habeas 22 SCOTUS had duty to inquire into cause of commitment. OVERRULED by ABERNATHY
Must show that adequate relief cannot be obtained in lower federal court or if the relief sought is from
Ex Parte Abernathy 1943 1195 Habeas 22 state court judgement where the petitioner has not exhausted remedies in state court to be entitled to
Whiteney v. Dick 1906 1197 Habeas 22 Court of appeals has never had authority to issue writ of habeas corpus except under the all writs act in aid
RASUL V BUSH 2004 1198 Habeas 22 Inteprets basic grant of habeas corpus in 2241 as extending to aliens detained as suspected terrorists at
Boumediene v. Bush 2008 1199 Habeas 22 DTA procedure is not an adequate substitute for habeas corpus and violated suspension clause as
 AEDPA does not remove federal courts jurisdiction over removable aliens applying for habeas. DISSENT
INS v. St Cyr 2001 1201 Habeas 22 ** (Scalia) relies on Bollman; the power to issue the writ must be given by law. Assuming suspension clause
Tarbles Case 1872 1203 Habeas 22 State courts lack authority to entertain federal habeas actions against federal custodians.
Ex parte Merryman 1861 1204 Habeas 22 Court rejects claim that President can suspend habeas claim with congressional authorization
Estelle v. McGuire 1991 1265 Habeas 22 Federal habeas corpus does not reach errors of state law.
Reed v. Farley 1994 1265 Habeas 22 Nonconstitutional violation must constitute a fundamental defect to be cognizable
Duncan v. Walker 2001 1267 Habeas 22 Limitations period is tolled during the pendancy of properly filed state post conviction proceedings but not
Equitable tolling is available in appropriate cases because 2244 d is properly considered nonjurisdictional.
Holland v. Florida 2010 1267 Habeas 22 ** Equitable principles have traditionally goverened habeas and equitable tolling would not undermine
A petitioner who can demonstrate that in light of new evidence no juror acting reasonably would have
McQuiggin v. Perkins 2013 1267 Habeas 22 ** found the petitioner guility beyond a reasonable doubt is not time barred. DISSENT (SCALIA): Court lacked
Day v. McDonough 2006 1267 Habeas 22 District court may raise a limitations defense sua sponte
Wood v. MilyARD 2012 1267 Habeas 22 When state expresslly disclaimed reliance on a limittations defense to which it was aware court of appeals
Lawrence v. Florida 2007 1267 Habeas 22 Limitations period is not tolled by filing a petition for cert. seeking review of an otherwise final state post-
Mayle v. Felix 2005 1267 Habeas 22 Amended petition filed outside limitation period that seeks to add a claim to a pending timely petition does
Pace v. DiGuglielmo 2005 1267 Habeas 22 State post conviction petition dismissed as untimely by state court is not properly filed under 2244d and
In a 2255 action, brought by federal prisoner, the one year period for initial recognition by the supreme
Dodd v. United States 2005 1267 Habeas 22 court of a new constitutional right, retroactively appliable to cases on collateral review, runs from the date
McFarland v. Scott 1994 1268 Habeas 22 Statutory right to counsel for attacking a capital sentence applies both before a habeas petition is filed.
Harbison v. Bell 2009 1268 Habeas 22 Statutory right to counsel for attacking a capital sentence applies also during state clemency proceedings.
2253C(2) added in 1996, codified precedant calling for issuance of a certificate if the appeal presented a
Slack v. McDaneil 2000 1269 Habeas 22 federal question of substance that was debateable among jurists of reason or not squarely forclsoed by
Lonchar v. Thomas 1996 1272 Habeas 22 Comes close to laying down rule that petitioner under death sentence is entitled to stay of execution.
Bowersox v. Williams 1996 1272 Habeas 22 Suggests that a stay in connection with a successive petition by capital petitioners will be far more difficult
Ex Parte Watkins 1830 1273 Habeas 22 Prisoner held pursuant to a criminal conviction could challenge in a habeas petition only the jurisdiction of
Ex Parte Siebold 1879 1273 Habeas 22 Writ embraced by federal prisoners that the statute underwhich the criminal conviction had been obtained
Ex parte Lange 1873 1273 Habeas 22 Writ embraced claims by federal prisoners that the sentence imposed exceeded what the statute
Frank v. Magnum 1915 1274 Habeas 22 Refused to grant writ involving due process claim arising from alleged mob domination of state trial
Moore v. Dempsey 1923 1274 Habeas 22 Opposite of Frank; grants writ involving due process claim arising from alleged mob domination of state
Brown v. Allen 1953 1275 Habeas 23
Daniel v. Allen 1281 Habeas 23 Announced a general rule that defaulted claims could not be heard by federal habeaus courts
Townsend v. Sain 1963 1281 Habeas 23 It is the typical not the rare case in which consitutional claims turn upon the resolution of contested factual
Fay v. Noia 1963 1282 Habeas 23 Thu jurisdictional prereq In habeas is not the judgment of a state court but detnetion simpliciter.
Sanders v. United States 1963 1283 Habeas 23 Conventional notions of finality haven o place wehre life or liberty is at stake and infringement of
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte 1973 1285 Habeas 23 Justice Powells approach [concurrence]: Would have held a fourth amendment claim cognizable on habeas
A state prisoner generally cannot obtain federal habeas corpus relief on the ground that evidence obtained
Stone v. Powell 1976 1285 Habeas 23 in an unconstitutional search or seizure was introduced at his trial. The exclusionary rule is nto a personal
habeas courts should not apply the rule followed by state and federal courts on direct review: that upon
Brecht v. Abrahamson 1993 1286 Habeas 23 finding a constitutional violation a court should grant relief unless the government can prove beyond a
habeas courts should not apply the rule followed by state and federal courts on direct review: that upon
Chapman v. California 1967 1287 Habeas 23 finding a constitutional violation a court should grant relief unless the government can prove beyond a
Rejects position that Miranda announced a set of prophylactic rules not a core constitutional right. Scalia:
Dickerson v. US 2000 1287 Habeas 23 ** would have denied relief on the ground that the equitable discretion possessed by habeas courts is abused
Limits stone. When an untainted trial jury finds the prisoner guilty, discrination in selection of the grand
Rose v. Mitchell 1979 1287 Habeas 23 jury which usually only has to find prima facie guilt, is hihgly unlikely to have lead to the conviction of an
Unlike the fourth amendments exclusionary rule, the Mirand safeguards a fundamental trial right that is
Withrow v, Williams 1993 1287 Habeas 23 not necessarily divorced from the correct assecertainment of guilt, further eliminating habeas review for
The DP requirment of truth beyond a reasonable doubt means not only that the jury must be so instructed
Jackson v. Virginia 1979 1288 Habeas 23 but also that the question whether a properly instructed jury could reasonable have found the evidence in
Herrera v. Collins 1993 1288 Habeas 23 Claims of actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence have never been held to state a ground for
IF a freestanding innocence claim may be brought on habeas relief was nto warranted by the vidence
House v. Bell 2006 1289 Habeas 23 presented even though five justices concluded that it was more likely than not that no reasonable juror
Court transfers an original petition for habeas to district court with instructions it should hold an
In re Davis 2009 1289 Habeas 23 ** evidentiary hearing on fresstanding evidence claims reaised in the petition. Dissent [scalia]: te court has
Judgment by state courts that at common law a judgment of conviction rendered by a court of general
US v. Hayman 1952 1291 Habeas 23 criminal jx was conclusive proof that confinement was legal prevents issuance of writ of habeas without
Upheld a provision of the DC code that for persons convicted of a local crime in the district or DC replaced
Swain v. Presley 1977 1292 Habeas 23 federal habeas corpus with a statutory motion in the DC courts. Majority notes that statute comensurate
Felker v. Turpin 1996 1292 Habeas 23 No suspension of the writ, judgments about the proper scope of the writa are normally left to congress and
Court asserts the power to render a constitutional decision that was nto fully retroactive ruling that its
Linkletter v. Walker 1965 1293 Habeas 23 decision in Mapp would not be retroactively applied to state court convictions that had become final before
Mapp v. Ohio 1961 1293 Habeas 23 Applies the fourth amendments exclusionary remedy to the states
Johnson v. NJ 1966 1293 Habeas 23 The miranda rules do not apply to trials that commence before the date of the miranda decision
Stovall v. Denno 1967 1293 Habeas 23 The retroactivity of new constitutional rulings. 1. the purpose of the rule 2. the exten of reliance on the old
Case is still subject to adjudication or on appeal differed importantly from cases on habeas review. On
Desist v. US 1969 1294 Habeas 23 direct review courts must apply all decisions retroactively, but a habeas review is ana extrodinary remedy
Case is still subject to adjudication or on appeal differed importantly from cases on habeas review. On
Mackey v US 1971 1294 Habeas 23 direct review courts must apply all decisions retroactively, but a habeas review is ana extrodinary remedy
endorsed Justice Harlans view that new rules should be fully retroactive on direct review (See desist and
Griffith v KY 1987 1294 Habeas 23 Mackey). Failure to apply a newly declared constitutional rule to criminal cases pending on direct review
Dissent questions whether court applies Griffith rule. Decision appears to depend on the distinctive nature
Davis v. US 2011 1294 Habeas 23 of the fourth amendments exclusionary remedy which has been repeatedly held to not be right of the
Teague v. Lane 1989 1295 Habeas 23
Butler v. McKellar 1990 1296 Habeas 23 Petitioner could not obtain habeas relief because the Roberson decision had established a new rule.
Edwards v. Arizona 1981 1296 Habeas 23 After a suspect has requested counsel the police may not initiate further interrogation until counsel has
Arizon v. Roberson 1988 1296 Habeas 23 Edwards applies equally when the second interrogation concerns a different crime from the one that was
Wright v. West 1992 1297 Habeas 23
Chaidez v. United States 2013 1297 Habeas 23 Articulates distinction between "threshold" issues about wheter a consitutional right applies and "garden
Penry v. Lynaugh 1989 1298 Habeas 23 The first Teague exception extends to new rules prohibiting a certain category of punishment for a certain
Caspari v. Bohlen 1994 1298 Habeas 23 The first Teague exception is inapplicable where the petitioners primary conduct was not beyond
Atkins v. VA 2002 1298 Habeas 23 Holding that the Eighth Amendment precluded imposition of a death sentence on a developmentally
Whorton v. Bockting 2007 1298 Habeas 23 Example of court not being able to find an example of a Teague second exception yet. Crawford announced
The confrontation clause prohibits the admission of hearsay that is testimonial whether or not it would be
Crawford v. Washington 2004 1298 Habeas 23 deemed reliable, unless the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to
Recharacterizes fist Teague exception as follows: new substantive rules generally apply retroactively this
Schriro v. Summerlin 2004 1299 Habeas 23 includes decisions that narrow the scope of a federal criminal statute by interpreating its terms, as well as
Bousley v. US 1299 Habeas 23 Example of decision that narrows the scope of a criminal statute
Only as a last resurt should circuit courts read SCOTUS decisions to create mandatory priorities, anything
Campti v. Matesanz 2003 1st Cir.
1300 Habeas 23 that precludes judges from taking the shortest resistance to the result impairs their ability to give truly
Danforth finds that Crawford retroactively applies, retroactivity jurisprudence is primarily concerned with
Danforth v. Minnesota 2008 1300 Habeas 23 the availablity or non-availability of remedies not with the question whter a consitutional violation
Terry Williams v. Taylor 2000 1302 Habeas 24
Held that the state court's application of the gross disproprotionality principle was not unreasonable where
Lockyer v. Andrade 2003 1313 Habeas 24 California's three strike law is appropriate in two consecutive sentances of 25 years for theft of video tapes,
Court found that 2254(d)(1) barred releif, observing that applying a general standard to a specific case can
Yarborough v. Alvarado 2004 1314 Habeas 24 demand a substantial element of judgment. Evaluating whether a rule application was unreasonable
California Supreme Court order in one sentence summary order was anadjudication on the merits within
Harrington v. Richter 2011 1314 Habeas 24 the meaning of 2254(d)2254(d)(1) is a difficult standard to meet because that was the intent. To obtain
White v. Woodall 2014 1314 Habeas 24 Example of circuit court disregarding 2254(d) a provision that some judges find too confining but that all
Lindh v. Murphy 1996, 7th Cir
1315 Habeas 24 Seventh cir. Discussion of constiutionality of 2254(d)
Court extends Harrington, there is no reason why the Richter presumption should not also apply when a
Johnson v. Williams 2013 1316 Habeas 24 state court opinion addresses some but not all of the Ds claims. So if discusses some claims but not all in
Court ruled that clearly established law for purposes of 2254(d) does not include Supreme Court decisions
Greene v. Fisher 2011 1316 Habeas 24 announced after the last decision on the merits in state court but before the Ds conviction became final on
Horn v. Banks 2002 1317 Habeas 24 Where there is neither a state court determination on the merits nor a procedural barrier to the exercise of
Example that new rule in question was not a watershed rule within the meaning of Teagues exception, the
Whorton v. Bockting 2007 1317 Habeas 24 court hterefore had no need to reach the question whether 2254(d) explicitly incorporated Teague's
AEDPA does not require a federal habeas court to adopt any one methodology in deciding the only
Locyer v. Andrade 2003 1317 Habeas 24 question that matters under 2254(D)1() whether a state court decision is contrary to, or involved an
Court reached the merits of Ps habeas claim and after f iniding it wanting said that the state court;s
Berghuis v. Thomploms 2010 1318 Habeas 24 decision rejecting Thomkin's Miranda claim was correct under de novo review and therefore necessarily
Tyler v. Cain 2001 1318 Habeas 24 It is not enough that a court has established principles of retroactivity and leaves the application of those
Cage v. Lousiana 1990 1318 Habeas 24 Not enough that court has established pricniples of retroactivity as it did in teague and leaves the
Nor was 2244(b)(2)(a) satisfied by a courts later holding that a "Cage error" is sturctuaral in that it is not
Sullivan v. Louisiana 1993 1318 Habeas 24 amenable to harmless error analysis. Structural error does not necesasarily fall into the second Teague
2255 action by a federal prisoner, Court held that the one-year period from recognition by the s.Ct of a new
Dodd v. United States 2005 1319 Habeas 24 consitutional right, retroactively applciable to cases on collateral review, runs from the date on which the
Lavelle v. Delle Rose 1973 1320 Habeas 24 The determination of volunatrisness obviously, if impictly, rested on a finding that petioners testiomony
Towsend v. Sain 1963 1321 Habeas 24 Court spelled out six circumstances in which a defect in the state factfinding procedures made a federal
Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes 1992 1321 Habeas 24 Forbade federal courts from holding hearings unless strict criteria were satisfied
Rejects state argument that non development of the facts in state court was in itself enough to bar a
Michael Williams v. Taylor 2000 1321 Habeas 24 federal evidentiary hearing. Thus failure to debvelop the factual basis of a claim is not established unless
Reversed 9th circuit ruling that 2254(d)(1) use of the past tense required an examination of the record
Cullen v. Pinholster 2011 1322 Habeas 24 when the state court decision was made. "It would be strange to ask federal courts to analyze whether a
Danforth v. Minnesota 2008 1301_Supp 62
Habeas 24 Teagues first exception establishes a constitutional rule that state courts must apply in collateral
McWilliams v. Dunn 2017 1314_Supp 62
Habeas 24 A states provision of mental health assistance to a cpiatal defendant fell so dramatically short of the
Ake v. Oklahoma 1985 1314_Supp 62
Habeas 24 Where certain threshold requirements are met states must provide indigent defendants with access to
Montgomery v. Louisiana 2016 1319_Supp 63
Habeas 24
Griffith v KY 1987 1319_Supp 76
Habeas 24
Danforth v. Minnesota 2008 1319_Supp 76
Habeas 24 Holding that on direct review, a new consitutional rule must be applied retroactively to all cases, state or
Johnson v. US 2015 1319_Supp 76
Habeas 24 The residual clause of the armed career criminal act was unconsitutionally vague.
Court held that Johnson v US is a substantive decision that applies retroactively to federal prisoner cases on
colalteral review. The court held that Johnson announced a new rule that changed the substantive reach of
Welch v. United States 2016 1319_Supp 76
Habeas 24 the ACCEA. The court continued whether a new rule is substantive or procedural requires consideration of
Foster v. Chatman 1759 1319_Supp 77
Habeas 24 States are under no obligation to permit colalteral attacks on convictions that have become final, and if
General Oil v. Crain 1908 1319_Supp 78
Habeas 24 A state courts determination regarding its jx to award a potentially required constiuttional remedy is not an
A potential bypass of AEDPAs limitations on successive petiitons may be found in the courts original writ.
Felker v. Turpin 1996 1319_Supp 78
Habeas 24 Udner this backdrop if AEDPA is read to preclude relief for a poetitioner seeking the retroactive benefit of
Gonzalez v. Crosby 2005 1319_Supp 79
Habeas 24 Interprets FRCP 60(b) to permit reoppening a judgment on the basis of extraordinary circumstances noting
Extraordinary circumstances justified a reoppening a judgment dneying relief to a state prisioner in what
was then his first federal habeas petition. P used prior decisions to excuse his failure to raise in state post
conviction proceedings a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in his Capital sentencing proceedings.
Buck v. Davis 2017 1319_Supp 79
Habeas 24 Court noted extraordinary circumstances may justify reoppening a judgment when a) there is a risk of
Court rejected a state courts factual findings under 2254(d)(2) as unreasonable when held up against the
Brumfield v. Cain 2015 1320_Supp 80
Habeas 24 evidencei n the record. Under the states implementing stadard P must only raise a reasonable doubt
Atkins v. VA 2002 1320_Supp 80
Habeas 24 The application of the death penalty for purposes of people with mental disabilities vioalted the 8th
Christeson v, Roper 2015 1338_Supp 81
Habeas 25 Substitution of counsel serves the interest of justice where appointed attny failed to meet with his client
Holland v. Florida 2010 1338_Supp 81-82
Habeas 25 Equitable tolling of AEDPAs one year limitations period may be had only on a showing of diligence and
Martinez and Trevino, used to decide Buck v. Davis, should be limited to their particular circusmtances.
Davila v. Davis 2017 1341_Supp 82
Habeas 25 Those cases qualify Coleman by recognizing a narrow exception applying only IAC claims and only where
Johnson v. Lee 2016 1346_Supp 83
Habeas 25 State's procedural bar may count as an adquate and independet ground for denying a federal habeas
Daniels v. Allen 1953 1323 Habeas 25 Companion to Brown v. Allen Court ruled that the prioners' failure to have made timely service of the
Fay v. Noia 1963 1324 Habeas 25 Held that Ps failure to have appealed from his conviction did not preclude the exercise of federal habeas
Murdock v. City of Mephis 1325 Habeas 25 SCOTUS will not review state court decisions resting on an adequate state ground, may be supported not
Wainwright v. Sykes 1977 1326 Habeas 25
Lee v. Kemna 2002 1335 Habeas 25 A state procedural default that would not bar direct review by the SCT also would not bar federal habeas
Found that the cause requirement may be satisfied under certain circumstances when a procedural failure
Reed v. Ross 1984 1337 Habeas 25 is not attributable to an intentional decision by counsel made in pursuit of his client's intersts. Here at the
Hankerson v. North Carolina 1977 1337 Habeas 25 States assignment of the BoP of Provocation was unconstitutional under Winship
In re Winship 1970 1337 Habeas 25 Held that due process requires a proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to consitute the
state court procedural default barred fedearl habeas view of the claim, emphasizing the considerable costs
associated with habeas review when the default stems from counsel's ignorance or inadvertance rather
Murray v. Carrier 1986 1338 Habeas 25 than from dleiberate decision to withhold a claim. A defendant who is represented by counsel whose
Engle v. Isaac 1982 1338 Habeas 25 SCOTUS refusal to excuse a state court default on the basis that in the view of the state courts consistant
Death row inmate abandoned by counsel of record. General principle that a lawyer's negligence does nto
Maples v. Thomas 2012 1338 Habeas 25 by itself consitute cause rests on agency law that a principal bears the risk of negligent conduct by his
Any right to counsel in state collateral proceedings if it exists, would not extend to an appeal from the
Coleman v. Thompson 1991 1339 Habeas 25 denial of relief in such a proceeding, and hence that the prisoner's failure to have appealed in the
Court qualified general rule that attny ignorance or inadvertence does not constitute cause for a procedrual
default unless it deprives the defendat of the constiuttional right to counsel. Inadequate assistance of
counsel in state colalteral proceeding that provides the first occasion at which the ineffectiveness of trial
counsel may be litigated may establish cause for ap risoner's procedural default of a claim of ineffective
assistance at trial. Cause can be established in two circumstance 1) where the state courts did not pppoint
Martinez v. Ryan 2012 1339 Habeas 25 ** counsel in the initial review colalteral proceeding for a claim of ineffective assistance at trial. 2) where
Rejected gov arg that failur of cousnel on direct appeal to raise ineffectiveness of trial counsel, even when
Massaro v. United States 2003 1339 Habeas 25 that claim was based solely on the trial record, consitutted a procedural default. Court offered a variety of
Were a state procedrual framework, by reason of its design and operation, makes it highly unlikely in a
Trevino v. Thaler 2013 1341 Habeas 25 typical case that a defedant will havea meaningful opportunity to raise a claim of IAC at trial on direct
Amadeo v, Zant 1988 1341 Habeas 25 Court found cause for default because the basis for the claim was reasonably unkown to the prisoner's
Extended the external impediment concept to the possible inadvertant witholding of information by the
Strickler v. Greene 1999 1342 Habeas 25 government. Found cause for Strickler's failure to have sought the info either at trial or in a state habeas
United States v. Frady 1982 1342 Habeas 25 to establish Prejudice the prisoner must show that errors at trial worked to his actual and substantial
 In an extraordinary case where a consitutional violation has probably resulted in the convion of one who is
Murray v. Carrier 1342 Habeas 25 actually innocent, a federal habeas court may grant the writ even in the absence of a showing of cause for
Reads Amadeo narrowly because 1) there is no finding here that the state concealed evidence and 2) any
McCleskey v. Zant 1991 1342 Habeas 25 concealment that might have occurred would not establish cause here because would not have prevented
Ruled that the prisoner was entitled to litigate cliams of ineffective assistance of counsel and failure to
House v. Bell 2006 1343 Habeas 25 disclose exculpatory evidence that would otherwise have been foreclosed because of his procedural default
"Actual Innocence" require proof by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable juror would fin the
prioner eligible for the death penalty under state law. Prisoners can meet this standard only by showing
Sawyer v. Whitley 1992 1343 Habeas 25 either that they are innocent of the crime itself or that no aggravating facor or "other condition of
Fay v. Noia deliberate bypass standarad does not continue to apply where state prisoner has defaulted his
Coleman v. Thompson 1991 1344 Habeas 25 entire appeal. Syke regime governs all defaults. Presumption that state courts decision on the mertis in
The cause a prejudice standard should not vary depending o nthe timing of a procedrual default or on the
Murray v. Carrier 1344 Habeas 25 strength of an uncertain and difficult assessment of the relative magnitude of the neftis attributable to the
Justices varied in their formulations of when such a failure to consult violates the sixth amendment, all
Roe v. Flores-Ortega 2000 1344 Habeas 25 agreed that it was a violation in the vast majority of cases and reiterated earlier hodlings that counsel must
O'Sullivan v. Boerckel 1999 1345 Habeas 25 Court extended Sykes regime to Ds failur to include claims in a petition seeking discretionary review before
Lynce v. Mathis 1345 Habeas 25 no need to exhaust when the state supreme court had previously rejetced similar claims in other cases
Warden v. Hayden 1967 1345 Habeas 25 Supreme Court follows as similar rule on direct review of state court decisions
Harris v. Reed 1989 1346 Habeas 25 Presumption that an ambiguous state court decision rests on the merits and thus no procedural default
Trest v. Cain 1997 1346 Habeas 25 procedural default does not deprive a federal habeas court of jurisdiction; rather it is normally a defense
Day v. McDonough 2006 1346 Habeas 25 In habeas proceeding district courts may in appropriate cirucmstances raise a procedural default defense
Sanders v. United States 1963 1346 Habeas 25 Standards under 2255 governing successive applications by federal prisoners, are those set forth in 2244
Overruled Sanders, held that the standards set forth in Sykes and successive cases governed the filing of
McCleskey v. Zant 1991 1346 Habeas 25 successive petitions
Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal 1998 1348 Habeas 25 Court found that the prisoner had filed only one petition after petiotion was dismissed as premature, and
phrase second or successive takes its meaning from case law, including decisions pre dating the enactment
Panetti v. Quarterman 2007 1348 Habeas 25 of 2244(b) in 96. Statutory bar on second or succsesive applciations does not apply to a claim that one is
Second petition was not successive stressing that the complete exhaustion rule is not to trpa the unwary
Slack v. McDaneil 2000 1349 Habeas 25 pro se prisoner. Court noted that states may limit multiple post conviction filings and that federal courts
Duckworth v. Serrano 1981 1350 Habeas 25 Court raises doubts about whether judges may fashion non-statutory exceptions to the exhaustion
Exhaustion requirement serves to protect the state courts role in the enforcement of federal law, to
rpevent disruption of state judicial proceedings, and to minimize friction between our federal and state
Rose v. Lundy 1982 1350 Habeas 25 systems of justice by allowing the states an initial opportunity to pass upon and correct alleged violations of
Lynce v. Mathis 1997 1350 Habeas 25 Exhaustion is not required where state remedy is ineffective, which is true where resort to state courts
Proper exhaustion requires presentation to the state courts of the same claim being raised on habeas: the
Picard v. Connor 1971 1351 Habeas 25 rule would serve no purpose if it could be satisfied by raising one claim in state courts and another in
A mere claim of unconstitutionality in state court does nto suffice: ordinarily a state prisoner does not fairly
Baldwin v. Reese 2004 1351 Habeas 25 present a claim to a state court if that court must read beyond a petition or brief that it does not alert it to
O'Sullivan v. Boerckel 1999 1351 Habeas 25 Prioner whose conviction was affirmed by an intermediate court of appeals must exhaust discretionary
Francisco v. Gathright 1974 1351 Habeas 25 Exhaustion of state postconviction processes is required when they are open to a claim not previously
Affirmed Ex Parte Hawk, application to state appellate courts for an extraordinary writ does nto exhaust
Pitchess v. Davis 1975 1351 Habeas 25 state remedies when the denial of the writ could not be taken as a decision on the merits, and when
Court held that the stay-and-abeyance procedure is appropriate only "when the district court determines
Rhines v. Weber 2005 1352 Habeas 25 there was good cause for the Ps failure to exhaust his claims first in state court" and further that a district
Braden v. 30th Judicial cir. Ct 1973 1353 Habeas 25 Court ruled that the P who was serving a sentence in Alabama while under detainer on a separate Kentucky
Boston Municipal Ct. v. Lydon 1984 1353 Habeas 25 P had satisfied the exhaustion requirement, noting that the highest state court had rejected the double