Palfrey v. Scates

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that “Plaintiff’s suit for money damages under the ADA is barred by WMATA’s Eleventh Amendment immunity”
• finding that the plaintiff’s “request for a declaratory judgment under the ADA is barred by WMATA’s Eleventh Amendment immunity”
• citing, inter alia, Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. at 155–57; Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 58 (1996)
• “[S]uits against a state (or an arm thereof) . . . are barred, regardless of the type of relief sought.”
• first quoting Provenz v. Miller, 102 F.3d 1478, 1483 (9th 9 Cir. 1996); and then citing Deirmenjian v. Deutsche Bank, A.G., No. CV 06-00774 10 MMM (CWx), 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96772, at n.52 (C.D. Cal. Sep. 11, 2006)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).