Huminski v. Corsones

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that defendant was entitled to judicial immunity for barring litigant from courthouse because she “acted pursuant to Vermont law in ensuring the security of the courthouse”
• concluding that trespass notices issued to plaintiff constituted “an unreasonable restriction on [his] expressive activity in a nonpublic forum,” and noting that “[s]uch broad restrictions are generally frowned upon even in nonpublic forums”
• holding courthouse parking lot is not a public forum because there was no evidence the government did anything to designate it as such
• holding that “courthouses, court lands, and parking lots” are nonpublic forums
• agreeing that “the interior of a courthouse is not a public forum” and collecting cases
• stating that state officials may be sued under Section 1983 in their individual capacities for both prospective and retrospective relief

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).