Dennis G. Huckins v. Mark McSweeney & a.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that FECA preempted state law requiring the disclosure of funding when conducting certain polls for a federal election
• explaining that the purpose of Part I, Article 14 “is to make civil remedies available and to guard against arbitrary and discriminatory infringements upon access to courts”
• asserting that Part I, Article 14 “is basically an equal protection clause in that it implies that all litigants similarly situated may appeal to the courts both for relief and for defense under like conditions and with like protection and without discrimination” (quotation omitted)
• plaintiff’s right to a remedy not violated because, although he could not sue municipality, he retained ability to bring claim directly against tortfeasor
• “A facial challenge is a head-on attack of a legislative judgment, an assertion that the challenged statute violates the Constitution in all, or virtually all, of its applications.” (quotation omitted)
• “[I]t is unconstitutional for the State to immunize itself or its municipalities from liability for intentional torts committed by government employees when those torts are not grounded on a reasonable belief in the lawfulness of the disputed act.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).