Emanuel v. Barry

How courts have described this case

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

• “[T]he fact that a plaintiff pleads an improper legal theory does not preclude recovery under the proper theory” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
• “The question of whether state action is required is answered by examining the constitutional rights allegedly infringed by the defendants. If the underlying constitutional right in a 1985(3
• “[T]he [Supreme] Court has consistently emphasized that the statute does not create substantive rights, thus precluding, as a matter of law, such a broad interpretation of ‘equal protection.’”
• “Plaintiffs are correct that ‘the law’ does guarantee them the right to be secure in their persons, but the law which does so is the criminal and tort law of their state, not the federal constitution.”
• state law right of peoples to be “secure in their persons”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).