United States v. Lopez-Armenta

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that defendant attorney ‘‘enjoys absolute immunity for his actions as counsel to the Grievance Committee, which are ‘quasi-public adjudicatory [or] prosecutorial’ in nature’’
• holding that the district court correctly found that the Eleventh Amendment barred the plaintiff's claims against the Appellate Division, the Grievance Committee, and the individual defendant named in his official capacity as counsel to the Grievance Committee
• affirming dismissal of claims against state appellate judges in their official capacity pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment
• dismissing a similar suit challenging a disciplinary sanction because “the New York State Appellate Division[] [and] the Grievance Committee[] . . . enjoy sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment”
• “We affirm the district court’s holding that the Eleventh Amendment bars [Plaintiff’s] claims for damages against . . . the Grievance Committee[] and [Counsel to the Grievance Committee] in his official capacity.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).