McIntosh v. Partridge

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).