Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
Fifth Circuit· 8/11/2008

McIntosh v. Partridge

Citations

  • 540 F.3d 315
  • 2008 WL 3198250

How courts have described this case

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

  • emphasizing that Congress expressly intended to limit USERRA suits against states to state courts
  • affirming district court’s finding that equal protection claim occasionally mentioned alongside due process claim was waived
  • “In his brief, McIntosh occasionally mentions an ‘equal protection’ claim in conjunction with his due pro- cess claim, but this claim is inadequately briefed and is hence waived.”
  • “Of course, a state department or agency (and its officers sued for damages in their official capacity) is considered as being the state for purposes of the Eleventh Amendment”
  • “USERRA’s jurisdictional statute provides that in ‘an action against a State (as an employer) by a person, the action may be brought in a State court.’ 38 U.S.C. § 4323(b)(2
  • “While [w]e may affirm a summary judgment on any ground supported by the record, this principle does not of itself generally justify affirmance on a ground not raised below.” (alteration in original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Garwood, Clement, Elrod

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

69 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

41 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named McIntosh v. Partridge

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.