Commonwealth v. Steele, A., Pet

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a takings plaintiff has “no cause of action directly under the United States Constitution”
• holding that a takings plaintiff has “no cause of action directly under the United States Constitution”
• holding that a takings plaintiff has “no cause of action directly under the United States Constitution”
• concluding that a plaintiff “complaining of a violation of a constitutional right must utilize 42 U.S.C. § 1983” where § 1983 “was available . . . but plaintiff failed to file its complaint within the applicable limitations period”
• holding plaintiff had no direct right of action under Constitution and was required to have asserted claim for constitutional violation through § 1983
• stating that a “litigant complaining of a violation of a constitutional right must utilize 42 U.S.C. § 1983”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).