Turpin v. Koropchak

How courts have described this case

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

• holding exception to state sovereign immunity could not save plaintiff’s claim from dismissal because “[n]othing in [plaintiff’s] complaint alleges a violation of the State constitution or a statute”
• “Nothing 2 The Illinois exception for illegal acts by state officials resembles the federal rule under Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908
• “Nothing in Turpin’s complaint alleges a violation of the State constitution or a statute, so this exception is off the table.”
• “The fact that we can find a broader parallel duty held by all citizens . . . doesn’t change a thing.”
• “The officer suit exception provides that when an officer of the State commits an unconstitutional act or violates a statute, the suit is not against the State, because the State is presumed not to violate its own constitution or enactments.”
• “The officer suit exception provides that when an officer of the State commits an unconstitutional act or violates a statute, the suit is not against the State, because the State is presumed not to violate its own constitution or enactments.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).