Kush v. Rutledge

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that § 1985(2) requires no intent to discriminate when addressing federal courts
• explaining that “Congress did not intend to impose a requirement of class-based animus on persons seeking to prove a violation of their rights under the first clause of § 1985(2),” but that requirement remains in claims under the second clause of § 1985(2) and § 1985(3)
• construing Section 1985(2) to require an allegation of racial or class-based invidiously discriminatory animus
• “the civil remedy for a violation of any of the subsections is found at the end of § 1985(3)”
• a minor battery by a prison guard may not suffice to state a claim under section 1983 based upon an eighth amendment violation
• Pennhurst II appears to permit a suit under state law against a state official for damages to be paid by the officer personally rather than by the state

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).