Minar v. Sheehy

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an injunction requesting the removal of negative entries from a personnel record resulting from an alleged due-process violation was not barred by the Eleventh Amendment
• stating that “expense of implementing” requested relief of reinstatement to job, support as researcher and removal of negative personnel record entries would be ancillary to purpose of suit
• explaining that the Court of Claims Act established a “quid pro quo, in which the state consents to be sued in exchange for a plaintiff's waiver of claims against the state’s employees”
• explaining that the Court of Claims Act established a “guid pro quo, in which the state consents to be sued in exchange for a plaintiff's waiver of claims against the state’s employees”
• explaining that the Court of Claims Act established a “quid pro quo, in which the state consents to be sued in exchange for a plaintiff's waiver of claims against the state’s employees”
• injunction .requesting expungement of negative entries from personnel record not barred by the. Eleventh Amendment

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).