Mead Johnson & Co. v. American Home Products Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that when a “complaint specifically seeks damages 9 The Second Circuit has not directly addressed this question. See Fabian v. Pappalardo, 395 F. Supp. 3d 257, 264 n.2 (S.D.N.Y. 2019
• “Ruling against a prisoner on an administrative complaint does 4 not cause or contribute to the violation.”
• “[T]he eleventh amendment does not extend to a suit against a state official in his individual capacity.”
• “Only persons who cause or participate in the violations are 4 responsible. [. . .] Ruling against a prisoner on an administrative complaint does not cause 5 or contribute to the violation.”
• “The complaint specifically seeks damages from the defendants in their individual capacities and the mere fact that the state may reimburse them does not make the state the real party in interest.”
• “[A]cts of state officials that violate federal constitutional rights are deemed not to be acts of the state and may be the subject of injunctive or declaratory relief in federal court.” (citing Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 167 n. 14 (1985)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).