Haywood v. Drown

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that § 1983 actions may be brought in state courts against correctional officers for constitutional violations, notwithstanding state’s explicit statutory bar on such actions
• holding that § 1983 actions may be brought in state courts against correctional officers for constitutional violations, notwithstanding state’s explicit statutory bar on such actions
• holding that a state statute diverting prisoner suits against 21 correctional officers to a court of limited jurisdiction violated the Supremacy Clause
• holding that supremacy clause of United States constitution prohibits states from \shut[ting] the courthouse door to federal [§ 1983 ] claims\ by divesting their state courts of jurisdiction
• holding that once a State creates a court of general jurisdiction, as all three of our States have, the State must hear and adjudicate § 1983 claims
• holding that New York could not shut the doors of state courts to hear civil rights actions to recover damages for acts within correction officers’ scope of employment

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).