Ronald Davidson v. Clement B. Capuano, David R. Harris and Joseph P. Keenan

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 subsequent action was not barred because the initial court did not have jurisdiction over the claim
• holding that plaintiff’s prior Article 78 proceeding in state court did not bar subsequent federal civil rights action because New York statute prohibited plaintiff from seeking damages in the Article 78 proceeding
• noting that special proceeding is designed to facilitate quick and easy summary disposition
• 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
• noting that special proceeding is designed to facilitate quick and easy summary disposition
• explaining that Section 1983 plaintiffs may seek damages despite prior Article 78 Proceedings requesting in-junctive or affirmative relief

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).