Parker v. Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a § 1983 claim for damages was not prohibited by claim preclusion because the plaintiff could not have sought damages in his prior Article 78 proceeding arising out of the same facts
• observing that damages for civil rights violations do not seem to be obtainable in Article 78 proceedings as they are not \incidental\ to the primary relief sought
• holding that a § 1983 claim was not prohibited by claim preclusion because the plaintiff could not have sought damages in his prior Article 78 proceeding arising out of the same facts, and noting agreement with our decision in Davidson v. Capuano, 792 F.2d 275, 282 (2d Cir.1986
• refusing to apply res judicata where the damages available under § 1983 were not available under the administrative proceedings
• refusing to apply res judicata where the damages available under § 1983 were not available under the administrative proceedings
• noting that the court had “impliedly indicated our agreement with the Second Circuit’s holding in Davidson v. Capuano” and holding that “the termination of the prior article 78 proceeding on the merits was not res judicata as to the section 1983 damage claims.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).