State v. Dusek

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that if the relief sought by the plaintiff violated the Eleventh Amendment, the court could lack the power to grant the relief
• concluding that the deterrent effect of a Section 1983 award “is eviscerated” if the constitutional tortfeasor is “relieved of the bulk of the financial consequences of the violation”
• concluding that the deterrent effect of a Section 1983 award “is eviscerated” if the constitutional tortfeasor is “relieved of the bulk of the financial consequences of the violation”
• noting the “inflexible” rule that a court must, “of its own motion,” order dismissal “in all cases where … jurisdiction does not affirmatively appear on the record” (quoting Mansfield, C. & L.M. Ry. Co. v. Swan, 111 U.S. 379, 382 (1884)
• “Although preemption often applies to state statutes, preemption can also invalidate actions of state executive branch officials and state courts that conflict with federal law.”
• “[T]he Eleventh Amendment bars declaratory relief that would have the same effect as an award of damages against the state.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).