context
stringlengths 58
1.13k
| citation_a
dict | citation_b
dict | case_id
int64 475
12.5M
| label
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|
The plain language of section 669.4 limits waiver of Iowa's sovereign immunity to lawsuits brought in Iowa state courts. It is important to note that the Supreme Court recognized in Feeney that a state can create a limited waiver of this immunity by consenting to be sued in its own state courts without waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immu nity in state court",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immu nity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]\"",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immu nity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | 9,133,490 | a |
The plain language of section 669.4 limits waiver of Iowa's sovereign immunity to lawsuits brought in Iowa state courts. It is important to note that the Supreme Court recognized in Feeney that a state can create a limited waiver of this immunity by consenting to be sued in its own state courts without waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immu nity in state court",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immu nity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036",
"parenthetical": "\"States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]\"",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immu nity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | 9,133,490 | a |
The plain language of section 669.4 limits waiver of Iowa's sovereign immunity to lawsuits brought in Iowa state courts. It is important to note that the Supreme Court recognized in Feeney that a state can create a limited waiver of this immunity by consenting to be sued in its own state courts without waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immu nity in state court",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immu nity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]\"",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immu nity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | 9,133,490 | a |
The plain language of section 669.4 limits waiver of Iowa's sovereign immunity to lawsuits brought in Iowa state courts. It is important to note that the Supreme Court recognized in Feeney that a state can create a limited waiver of this immunity by consenting to be sued in its own state courts without waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immu nity in state court",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immu nity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]\"",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immu nity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | 9,133,490 | a |
The plain language of section 669.4 limits waiver of Iowa's sovereign immunity to lawsuits brought in Iowa state courts. It is important to note that the Supreme Court recognized in Feeney that a state can create a limited waiver of this immunity by consenting to be sued in its own state courts without waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immu nity in state court",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immu nity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036",
"parenthetical": "\"States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]\"",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immu nity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | 9,133,490 | a |
The plain language of section 669.4 limits waiver of Iowa's sovereign immunity to lawsuits brought in Iowa state courts. It is important to note that the Supreme Court recognized in Feeney that a state can create a limited waiver of this immunity by consenting to be sued in its own state courts without waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]\"",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immu nity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immu nity in state court",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immu nity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | 9,133,490 | b |
The plain language of section 669.4 limits waiver of Iowa's sovereign immunity to lawsuits brought in Iowa state courts. It is important to note that the Supreme Court recognized in Feeney that a state can create a limited waiver of this immunity by consenting to be sued in its own state courts without waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]\"",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immu nity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that Court has consistently held that state's waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immu nity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | 9,133,490 | b |
The plain language of section 669.4 limits waiver of Iowa's sovereign immunity to lawsuits brought in Iowa state courts. It is important to note that the Supreme Court recognized in Feeney that a state can create a limited waiver of this immunity by consenting to be sued in its own state courts without waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036",
"parenthetical": "\"States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]\"",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immu nity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that Court has consistently held that state's waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immu nity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | 9,133,490 | b |
The plain language of section 669.4 limits waiver of Iowa's sovereign immunity to lawsuits brought in Iowa state courts. It is important to note that the Supreme Court recognized in Feeney that a state can create a limited waiver of this immunity by consenting to be sued in its own state courts without waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that Court has consistently held that state's waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immu nity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]\"",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immu nity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | 9,133,490 | a |
The plain language of section 669.4 limits waiver of Iowa's sovereign immunity to lawsuits brought in Iowa state courts. It is important to note that the Supreme Court recognized in Feeney that a state can create a limited waiver of this immunity by consenting to be sued in its own state courts without waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that Court has consistently held that state's waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immu nity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]\"",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immu nity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | 9,133,490 | a |
The plain language of section 669.4 limits waiver of Iowa's sovereign immunity to lawsuits brought in Iowa state courts. It is important to note that the Supreme Court recognized in Feeney that a state can create a limited waiver of this immunity by consenting to be sued in its own state courts without waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036",
"parenthetical": "\"States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]\"",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immu nity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that Court has consistently held that state's waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immu nity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | 9,133,490 | b |
The plain language of section 669.4 limits waiver of Iowa's sovereign immunity to lawsuits brought in Iowa state courts. It is important to note that the Supreme Court recognized in Feeney that a state can create a limited waiver of this immunity by consenting to be sued in its own state courts without waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]\"",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immu nity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that Court has consistently held that state's waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immu nity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | 9,133,490 | b |
The plain language of section 669.4 limits waiver of Iowa's sovereign immunity to lawsuits brought in Iowa state courts. It is important to note that the Supreme Court recognized in Feeney that a state can create a limited waiver of this immunity by consenting to be sued in its own state courts without waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that Court has consistently held that state's waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immu nity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]\"",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immu nity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | 9,133,490 | a |
The plain language of section 669.4 limits waiver of Iowa's sovereign immunity to lawsuits brought in Iowa state courts. It is important to note that the Supreme Court recognized in Feeney that a state can create a limited waiver of this immunity by consenting to be sued in its own state courts without waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that Court has consistently held that state's waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immu nity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036",
"parenthetical": "\"States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]\"",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immu nity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | 9,133,490 | a |
The plain language of section 669.4 limits waiver of Iowa's sovereign immunity to lawsuits brought in Iowa state courts. It is important to note that the Supreme Court recognized in Feeney that a state can create a limited waiver of this immunity by consenting to be sued in its own state courts without waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]\"",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immu nity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that Court has consistently held that state's waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immu nity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | 9,133,490 | b |
The plain language of section 669.4 limits waiver of Iowa's sovereign immunity to lawsuits brought in Iowa state courts. It is important to note that the Supreme Court recognized in Feeney that a state can create a limited waiver of this immunity by consenting to be sued in its own state courts without waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "577 F.2d 579, 585",
"parenthetical": "\"A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts.\"",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immu nity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]\"",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immu nity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | 9,133,490 | a |
The plain language of section 669.4 limits waiver of Iowa's sovereign immunity to lawsuits brought in Iowa state courts. It is important to note that the Supreme Court recognized in Feeney that a state can create a limited waiver of this immunity by consenting to be sued in its own state courts without waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "577 F.2d 579, 585",
"parenthetical": "\"A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts.\"",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immu nity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036",
"parenthetical": "\"States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]\"",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immu nity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | 9,133,490 | a |
The plain language of section 669.4 limits waiver of Iowa's sovereign immunity to lawsuits brought in Iowa state courts. It is important to note that the Supreme Court recognized in Feeney that a state can create a limited waiver of this immunity by consenting to be sued in its own state courts without waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "577 F.2d 579, 585",
"parenthetical": "\"A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts.\"",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immu nity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]\"",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immu nity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | 9,133,490 | a |
The plain language of section 669.4 limits waiver of Iowa's sovereign immunity to lawsuits brought in Iowa state courts. It is important to note that the Supreme Court recognized in Feeney that a state can create a limited waiver of this immunity by consenting to be sued in its own state courts without waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]\"",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immunity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amend ment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "483 U.S. 468, 473-74",
"parenthetical": "noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immunity in state court",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immunity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amend ment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | 11,076,953 | b |
The plain language of section 669.4 limits waiver of Iowa's sovereign immunity to lawsuits brought in Iowa state courts. It is important to note that the Supreme Court recognized in Feeney that a state can create a limited waiver of this immunity by consenting to be sued in its own state courts without waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "483 U.S. 468, 473-74",
"parenthetical": "noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immunity in state court",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immunity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amend ment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036",
"parenthetical": "\"States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]\"",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immunity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amend ment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | 11,076,953 | a |
The plain language of section 669.4 limits waiver of Iowa's sovereign immunity to lawsuits brought in Iowa state courts. It is important to note that the Supreme Court recognized in Feeney that a state can create a limited waiver of this immunity by consenting to be sued in its own state courts without waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "483 U.S. 468, 473-74",
"parenthetical": "noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immunity in state court",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immunity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amend ment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]\"",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immunity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amend ment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | 11,076,953 | a |
The plain language of section 669.4 limits waiver of Iowa's sovereign immunity to lawsuits brought in Iowa state courts. It is important to note that the Supreme Court recognized in Feeney that a state can create a limited waiver of this immunity by consenting to be sued in its own state courts without waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]\"",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immunity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amend ment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immunity in state court",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immunity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amend ment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | 11,076,953 | b |
The plain language of section 669.4 limits waiver of Iowa's sovereign immunity to lawsuits brought in Iowa state courts. It is important to note that the Supreme Court recognized in Feeney that a state can create a limited waiver of this immunity by consenting to be sued in its own state courts without waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036",
"parenthetical": "\"States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]\"",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immunity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amend ment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immunity in state court",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immunity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amend ment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | 11,076,953 | b |
The plain language of section 669.4 limits waiver of Iowa's sovereign immunity to lawsuits brought in Iowa state courts. It is important to note that the Supreme Court recognized in Feeney that a state can create a limited waiver of this immunity by consenting to be sued in its own state courts without waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immunity in state court",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immunity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amend ment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]\"",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immunity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amend ment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | 11,076,953 | a |
The plain language of section 669.4 limits waiver of Iowa's sovereign immunity to lawsuits brought in Iowa state courts. It is important to note that the Supreme Court recognized in Feeney that a state can create a limited waiver of this immunity by consenting to be sued in its own state courts without waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]\"",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immunity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amend ment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immunity in state court",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immunity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amend ment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | 11,076,953 | b |
The plain language of section 669.4 limits waiver of Iowa's sovereign immunity to lawsuits brought in Iowa state courts. It is important to note that the Supreme Court recognized in Feeney that a state can create a limited waiver of this immunity by consenting to be sued in its own state courts without waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immunity in state court",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immunity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amend ment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036",
"parenthetical": "\"States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]\"",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immunity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amend ment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | 11,076,953 | a |
The plain language of section 669.4 limits waiver of Iowa's sovereign immunity to lawsuits brought in Iowa state courts. It is important to note that the Supreme Court recognized in Feeney that a state can create a limited waiver of this immunity by consenting to be sued in its own state courts without waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immunity in state court",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immunity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amend ment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]\"",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immunity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amend ment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | 11,076,953 | a |
The plain language of section 669.4 limits waiver of Iowa's sovereign immunity to lawsuits brought in Iowa state courts. It is important to note that the Supreme Court recognized in Feeney that a state can create a limited waiver of this immunity by consenting to be sued in its own state courts without waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]\"",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immunity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amend ment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that Court has consistently held that state's waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immunity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amend ment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | 11,076,953 | b |
The plain language of section 669.4 limits waiver of Iowa's sovereign immunity to lawsuits brought in Iowa state courts. It is important to note that the Supreme Court recognized in Feeney that a state can create a limited waiver of this immunity by consenting to be sued in its own state courts without waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that Court has consistently held that state's waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immunity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amend ment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036",
"parenthetical": "\"States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]\"",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immunity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amend ment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | 11,076,953 | a |
The plain language of section 669.4 limits waiver of Iowa's sovereign immunity to lawsuits brought in Iowa state courts. It is important to note that the Supreme Court recognized in Feeney that a state can create a limited waiver of this immunity by consenting to be sued in its own state courts without waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]\"",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immunity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amend ment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that Court has consistently held that state's waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immunity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amend ment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | 11,076,953 | b |
The plain language of section 669.4 limits waiver of Iowa's sovereign immunity to lawsuits brought in Iowa state courts. It is important to note that the Supreme Court recognized in Feeney that a state can create a limited waiver of this immunity by consenting to be sued in its own state courts without waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]\"",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immunity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amend ment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that Court has consistently held that state's waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immunity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amend ment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | 11,076,953 | b |
The plain language of section 669.4 limits waiver of Iowa's sovereign immunity to lawsuits brought in Iowa state courts. It is important to note that the Supreme Court recognized in Feeney that a state can create a limited waiver of this immunity by consenting to be sued in its own state courts without waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036",
"parenthetical": "\"States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]\"",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immunity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amend ment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that Court has consistently held that state's waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immunity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amend ment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | 11,076,953 | b |
The plain language of section 669.4 limits waiver of Iowa's sovereign immunity to lawsuits brought in Iowa state courts. It is important to note that the Supreme Court recognized in Feeney that a state can create a limited waiver of this immunity by consenting to be sued in its own state courts without waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]\"",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immunity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amend ment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that Court has consistently held that state's waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immunity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amend ment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | 11,076,953 | b |
The plain language of section 669.4 limits waiver of Iowa's sovereign immunity to lawsuits brought in Iowa state courts. It is important to note that the Supreme Court recognized in Feeney that a state can create a limited waiver of this immunity by consenting to be sued in its own state courts without waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]\"",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immunity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amend ment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that Court has consistently held that state's waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immunity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amend ment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | 11,076,953 | b |
The plain language of section 669.4 limits waiver of Iowa's sovereign immunity to lawsuits brought in Iowa state courts. It is important to note that the Supreme Court recognized in Feeney that a state can create a limited waiver of this immunity by consenting to be sued in its own state courts without waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036",
"parenthetical": "\"States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]\"",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immunity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amend ment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that Court has consistently held that state's waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immunity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amend ment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | 11,076,953 | b |
The plain language of section 669.4 limits waiver of Iowa's sovereign immunity to lawsuits brought in Iowa state courts. It is important to note that the Supreme Court recognized in Feeney that a state can create a limited waiver of this immunity by consenting to be sued in its own state courts without waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that Court has consistently held that state's waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immunity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amend ment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]\"",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immunity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amend ment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | 11,076,953 | a |
The plain language of section 669.4 limits waiver of Iowa's sovereign immunity to lawsuits brought in Iowa state courts. It is important to note that the Supreme Court recognized in Feeney that a state can create a limited waiver of this immunity by consenting to be sued in its own state courts without waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]\"",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immunity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amend ment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "577 F.2d 579, 585",
"parenthetical": "\"A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amend ment immunity from suit in federal courts.\"",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immunity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amend ment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | 11,076,953 | b |
The plain language of section 669.4 limits waiver of Iowa's sovereign immunity to lawsuits brought in Iowa state courts. It is important to note that the Supreme Court recognized in Feeney that a state can create a limited waiver of this immunity by consenting to be sued in its own state courts without waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036",
"parenthetical": "\"States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]\"",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immunity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amend ment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "577 F.2d 579, 585",
"parenthetical": "\"A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amend ment immunity from suit in federal courts.\"",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immunity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amend ment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | 11,076,953 | b |
The plain language of section 669.4 limits waiver of Iowa's sovereign immunity to lawsuits brought in Iowa state courts. It is important to note that the Supreme Court recognized in Feeney that a state can create a limited waiver of this immunity by consenting to be sued in its own state courts without waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]\"",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immunity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amend ment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "577 F.2d 579, 585",
"parenthetical": "\"A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amend ment immunity from suit in federal courts.\"",
"sentence": "Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868 (“A State does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit only in its own courts,” quoting Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981)); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (noting that state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immunity in state court); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (noting that Court has consistently held that state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts is not waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts); In re Secretary of Dep’t of Crime Control and Public Safety, 7 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868), cert. denied sub nom. Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control, 511 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 2106, 128 L.Ed.2d 667 (1994); Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 910 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585 (9th Cir.1978) (“A state may waive immunity from suit in its own courts without thereby waiving its Eleventh Amend ment immunity from suit in federal courts.”); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2036, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (“States have real and vital interests in preferring their own forum [over a federal forum] in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to be disregarded based upon a waiver [of immunity in the state forum]”)."
} | 11,076,953 | b |
The amount disbursed therefore might not reach the stated maximum. When the school issues the loan, it is unknown whether the student will use all, some, or none of the available credit. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "535 N.W.2d 398, 398",
"parenthetical": "holding that a construction contract was not an open-end credit plan because it \"had a specific price set out in its original form, which was only amended once\"",
"sentence": "See Peterson, 584 N.W.2d at 663 (finding no fixed debt when attorney did not agree to provide representation for a specific fee and instead charged an hourly rate); cf. Brozek, 535 N.W.2d at 398 (holding that a construction contract was not an open-end credit plan because it “had a specific price set out in its original form, which was only amended once”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "584 N.W.2d 663, 663",
"parenthetical": "finding no fixed debt when attorney did not agree to provide representation for a specific fee and instead charged an hourly rate",
"sentence": "See Peterson, 584 N.W.2d at 663 (finding no fixed debt when attorney did not agree to provide representation for a specific fee and instead charged an hourly rate); cf. Brozek, 535 N.W.2d at 398 (holding that a construction contract was not an open-end credit plan because it “had a specific price set out in its original form, which was only amended once”)."
} | 6,781,161 | b |
We hereby affirm the trial court's denial of Kenneth Louis Dessaure's successive motion for postconviction relief. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "197 So.3d 16, 40",
"parenthetical": "determining that defendant who validly waived penalty phase jury was not entitled to relief under Hurst because a defendant \"cannot subvert the right to jury factfind-ing by waiving that right and then suggesting that a subsequent development in the law has fundamentally undermined his sentence\"",
"sentence": "See Mullens v. State, 197 So.3d 16, 40 (Fla. 2016) (determining that defendant who validly waived penalty phase jury was not entitled to relief under Hurst because a defendant “cannot subvert the right to jury factfind-ing by waiving that right and then suggesting that a subsequent development in the law has fundamentally undermined his sentence”), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 672, 196 L.Ed.2d 557 (2017); see also Brant v. State, 197 So.3d 1051, 1079 (Fla. 2016) (relying on Mullens to conclude that a claim for Hurst relief after defendant waived penalty phase jury was equally precluded in the postconviction context)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "197 So.3d 1051, 1079",
"parenthetical": "relying on Mullens to conclude that a claim for Hurst relief after defendant waived penalty phase jury was equally precluded in the postconviction context",
"sentence": "See Mullens v. State, 197 So.3d 16, 40 (Fla. 2016) (determining that defendant who validly waived penalty phase jury was not entitled to relief under Hurst because a defendant “cannot subvert the right to jury factfind-ing by waiving that right and then suggesting that a subsequent development in the law has fundamentally undermined his sentence”), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 672, 196 L.Ed.2d 557 (2017); see also Brant v. State, 197 So.3d 1051, 1079 (Fla. 2016) (relying on Mullens to conclude that a claim for Hurst relief after defendant waived penalty phase jury was equally precluded in the postconviction context)."
} | 12,369,816 | a |
We hereby affirm the trial court's denial of Kenneth Louis Dessaure's successive motion for postconviction relief. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "197 So.3d 1051, 1079",
"parenthetical": "relying on Mullens to conclude that a claim for Hurst relief after defendant waived penalty phase jury was equally precluded in the postconviction context",
"sentence": "See Mullens v. State, 197 So.3d 16, 40 (Fla. 2016) (determining that defendant who validly waived penalty phase jury was not entitled to relief under Hurst because a defendant “cannot subvert the right to jury factfind-ing by waiving that right and then suggesting that a subsequent development in the law has fundamentally undermined his sentence”), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 672, 196 L.Ed.2d 557 (2017); see also Brant v. State, 197 So.3d 1051, 1079 (Fla. 2016) (relying on Mullens to conclude that a claim for Hurst relief after defendant waived penalty phase jury was equally precluded in the postconviction context)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "determining that defendant who validly waived penalty phase jury was not entitled to relief under Hurst because a defendant \"cannot subvert the right to jury factfind-ing by waiving that right and then suggesting that a subsequent development in the law has fundamentally undermined his sentence\"",
"sentence": "See Mullens v. State, 197 So.3d 16, 40 (Fla. 2016) (determining that defendant who validly waived penalty phase jury was not entitled to relief under Hurst because a defendant “cannot subvert the right to jury factfind-ing by waiving that right and then suggesting that a subsequent development in the law has fundamentally undermined his sentence”), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 672, 196 L.Ed.2d 557 (2017); see also Brant v. State, 197 So.3d 1051, 1079 (Fla. 2016) (relying on Mullens to conclude that a claim for Hurst relief after defendant waived penalty phase jury was equally precluded in the postconviction context)."
} | 12,369,816 | b |
We hereby affirm the trial court's denial of Kenneth Louis Dessaure's successive motion for postconviction relief. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "197 So.3d 1051, 1079",
"parenthetical": "relying on Mullens to conclude that a claim for Hurst relief after defendant waived penalty phase jury was equally precluded in the postconviction context",
"sentence": "See Mullens v. State, 197 So.3d 16, 40 (Fla. 2016) (determining that defendant who validly waived penalty phase jury was not entitled to relief under Hurst because a defendant “cannot subvert the right to jury factfind-ing by waiving that right and then suggesting that a subsequent development in the law has fundamentally undermined his sentence”), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 672, 196 L.Ed.2d 557 (2017); see also Brant v. State, 197 So.3d 1051, 1079 (Fla. 2016) (relying on Mullens to conclude that a claim for Hurst relief after defendant waived penalty phase jury was equally precluded in the postconviction context)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "determining that defendant who validly waived penalty phase jury was not entitled to relief under Hurst because a defendant \"cannot subvert the right to jury factfind-ing by waiving that right and then suggesting that a subsequent development in the law has fundamentally undermined his sentence\"",
"sentence": "See Mullens v. State, 197 So.3d 16, 40 (Fla. 2016) (determining that defendant who validly waived penalty phase jury was not entitled to relief under Hurst because a defendant “cannot subvert the right to jury factfind-ing by waiving that right and then suggesting that a subsequent development in the law has fundamentally undermined his sentence”), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 672, 196 L.Ed.2d 557 (2017); see also Brant v. State, 197 So.3d 1051, 1079 (Fla. 2016) (relying on Mullens to conclude that a claim for Hurst relief after defendant waived penalty phase jury was equally precluded in the postconviction context)."
} | 12,369,816 | b |
In light of the fact that Manager is the prospective purchaser of MCLP's general partnership interest, the Court finds that Manager is not disinterested and holds an interest adverse to the estate. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "19 F.3d 54, 61-62",
"parenthetical": "affirming denial of compensation for counsel's conflicts of interest which included representation of both debtor and purchaser of property of debtor's estate in the same transaction",
"sentence": "See In re CF Holding Corp., 164 B.R. 799 (Bankr.D.Conn.1994) (special financial advisor and bankruptcy consultant was no longer disinterested and held an interest adverse to estate when managing partner of financial advisor subscribed to stock in entity which was seeking to purchase majority interest in debtor); see also Rome v. Braunstein, 19 F.3d 54, 61-62 (1st Cir.1994) (affirming denial of compensation for counsel’s conflicts of interest which included representation of both debtor and purchaser of property of debtor’s estate in the same transaction); In re Watson Seafood & Poultry Co., 40 B.R. 436, 442 (Bankr.E.D.N.C.1984) (attorney’s representation of debtor and purchaser of property of the estate represented conflict of interest); c.f."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "special financial advisor and bankruptcy consultant was no longer disinterested and held an interest adverse to estate when managing partner of financial advisor subscribed to stock in entity which was seeking to purchase majority interest in debtor",
"sentence": "See In re CF Holding Corp., 164 B.R. 799 (Bankr.D.Conn.1994) (special financial advisor and bankruptcy consultant was no longer disinterested and held an interest adverse to estate when managing partner of financial advisor subscribed to stock in entity which was seeking to purchase majority interest in debtor); see also Rome v. Braunstein, 19 F.3d 54, 61-62 (1st Cir.1994) (affirming denial of compensation for counsel’s conflicts of interest which included representation of both debtor and purchaser of property of debtor’s estate in the same transaction); In re Watson Seafood & Poultry Co., 40 B.R. 436, 442 (Bankr.E.D.N.C.1984) (attorney’s representation of debtor and purchaser of property of the estate represented conflict of interest); c.f."
} | 6,111,516 | b |
In light of the fact that Manager is the prospective purchaser of MCLP's general partnership interest, the Court finds that Manager is not disinterested and holds an interest adverse to the estate. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "special financial advisor and bankruptcy consultant was no longer disinterested and held an interest adverse to estate when managing partner of financial advisor subscribed to stock in entity which was seeking to purchase majority interest in debtor",
"sentence": "See In re CF Holding Corp., 164 B.R. 799 (Bankr.D.Conn.1994) (special financial advisor and bankruptcy consultant was no longer disinterested and held an interest adverse to estate when managing partner of financial advisor subscribed to stock in entity which was seeking to purchase majority interest in debtor); see also Rome v. Braunstein, 19 F.3d 54, 61-62 (1st Cir.1994) (affirming denial of compensation for counsel’s conflicts of interest which included representation of both debtor and purchaser of property of debtor’s estate in the same transaction); In re Watson Seafood & Poultry Co., 40 B.R. 436, 442 (Bankr.E.D.N.C.1984) (attorney’s representation of debtor and purchaser of property of the estate represented conflict of interest); c.f."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "40 B.R. 436, 442",
"parenthetical": "attorney's representation of debtor and purchaser of property of the estate represented conflict of interest",
"sentence": "See In re CF Holding Corp., 164 B.R. 799 (Bankr.D.Conn.1994) (special financial advisor and bankruptcy consultant was no longer disinterested and held an interest adverse to estate when managing partner of financial advisor subscribed to stock in entity which was seeking to purchase majority interest in debtor); see also Rome v. Braunstein, 19 F.3d 54, 61-62 (1st Cir.1994) (affirming denial of compensation for counsel’s conflicts of interest which included representation of both debtor and purchaser of property of debtor’s estate in the same transaction); In re Watson Seafood & Poultry Co., 40 B.R. 436, 442 (Bankr.E.D.N.C.1984) (attorney’s representation of debtor and purchaser of property of the estate represented conflict of interest); c.f."
} | 6,111,516 | a |
Federal courts have heretofore operated by assuming the applicability of a habeas remedy in a case such as this without detaned analysis of the specific foundation for that remedy. The Sixth Circuit has issued a number of unpublished opinions citing Preiser as authority for the proposition that SS 2254 provides the remedy for a prisoner claiming that a violation of due process in a prison disciplinary proceeding has deprived him of sentence or good-time credits. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "following Preiser and holding that petitioner fafied to exhaust state remedies before filing petition under SS 2254",
"sentence": "Cf. Branham v. Koehler, No. 89-1709, 1989 WL 136116 (6th Cir. Nov.13, 1989) (following Preiser and holding that petitioner fafied to exhaust state remedies before filing petition under § 2254). These cases, whde not binding because unpublished, nevertheless indicate that the Sixth Circuit considers this matter resolved in light of Preiser,"
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "applying Preiser and holding Tennessee prisoner's challenge to early release date extension must be .made under SS 2254",
"sentence": "Carney v. Sundquist, No. 96-5320, 1997 WL 135619 (6th Cir. Mar.24, 1997) (perfunctorily applying Heck and Preiser to sentence credit claim); Barnes v. Lewis, No. 93-5698, 1993 WL 515483 (6th Cir. Dec. 10, 1993) (following Preiser); Pettigrew v. Bass, No. 92-5373, 1992 WL 245916 (6th Cir. Sept.29, 1992) (applying Preiser and holding Tennessee prisoner’s challenge to early release date extension must be .made under § 2254); Privett v. Pellegrin, No. 85-5049, 1986 WL 16899 (6th Cir. Apr. 17, 1986) (interpreting Preiser as holding that habeas petition seeking restoration of sentence-credits is governed by § 2254 exhaustion requirement)."
} | 11,627,669 | b |
Federal courts have heretofore operated by assuming the applicability of a habeas remedy in a case such as this without detaned analysis of the specific foundation for that remedy. The Sixth Circuit has issued a number of unpublished opinions citing Preiser as authority for the proposition that SS 2254 provides the remedy for a prisoner claiming that a violation of due process in a prison disciplinary proceeding has deprived him of sentence or good-time credits. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "interpreting Preiser as holding that habeas petition seeking restoration of sentence-credits is governed by SS 2254 exhaustion requirement",
"sentence": "Carney v. Sundquist, No. 96-5320, 1997 WL 135619 (6th Cir. Mar.24, 1997) (perfunctorily applying Heck and Preiser to sentence credit claim); Barnes v. Lewis, No. 93-5698, 1993 WL 515483 (6th Cir. Dec. 10, 1993) (following Preiser); Pettigrew v. Bass, No. 92-5373, 1992 WL 245916 (6th Cir. Sept.29, 1992) (applying Preiser and holding Tennessee prisoner’s challenge to early release date extension must be .made under § 2254); Privett v. Pellegrin, No. 85-5049, 1986 WL 16899 (6th Cir. Apr. 17, 1986) (interpreting Preiser as holding that habeas petition seeking restoration of sentence-credits is governed by § 2254 exhaustion requirement)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "following Preiser and holding that petitioner fafied to exhaust state remedies before filing petition under SS 2254",
"sentence": "Cf. Branham v. Koehler, No. 89-1709, 1989 WL 136116 (6th Cir. Nov.13, 1989) (following Preiser and holding that petitioner fafied to exhaust state remedies before filing petition under § 2254). These cases, whde not binding because unpublished, nevertheless indicate that the Sixth Circuit considers this matter resolved in light of Preiser,"
} | 11,627,669 | a |
Thus, Katzenmoyer attempts to avoid the policy's exclusion of coverage for bodily injury arising out of accidents occurring "away from the insured premises." This strategy for avoiding the impact of the policy's exclusion of coverage for accidents occurring away from the residence premises has been rejected by other courts. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "408 Pa.Super. 511, 514",
"parenthetical": "holding that \"the all-terrain vehicle being operated by Michael Pirrung was on an 'insured location' at the time of his fatal accident\"",
"sentence": "See Federal Kemper Ins. Co. v. Derr, 386 Pa.Super. 382, 391-92, 563 A.2d 118, 123 (Pa.Super. 1989); Uguccioni v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 408 Pa.Super. 511, 514, 597 A.2d 149, 150 (Pa.Super.1991) (holding that \"the all-terrain vehicle being operated by Michael Pirrung was on an ‘insured location’ at the time of his fatal accident”); see also Farm Family Mutual Ins. Co. v. Whelpley, 54 Mass. App.Ct. 743, 746, 767 N.E.2d 1101, 1104 (2002); DeWitt v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 109 Ohio App.3d 716, 720, 672 N.E.2d 1104, 1107 (1996) (\"stating that [cjourts have held that the location of the accident rather than the location of the negligence that caused the accident is dispositive on the applicability of the exclusion clause”); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Shofner, 573 So.2d 47, 50 (Fla.Dist. Ct.App.1990)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "109 Ohio App.3d 716, 720",
"parenthetical": "\"stating that [cjourts have held that the location of the accident rather than the location of the negligence that caused the accident is dispositive on the applicability of the exclusion clause\"",
"sentence": "See Federal Kemper Ins. Co. v. Derr, 386 Pa.Super. 382, 391-92, 563 A.2d 118, 123 (Pa.Super. 1989); Uguccioni v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 408 Pa.Super. 511, 514, 597 A.2d 149, 150 (Pa.Super.1991) (holding that \"the all-terrain vehicle being operated by Michael Pirrung was on an ‘insured location’ at the time of his fatal accident”); see also Farm Family Mutual Ins. Co. v. Whelpley, 54 Mass. App.Ct. 743, 746, 767 N.E.2d 1101, 1104 (2002); DeWitt v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 109 Ohio App.3d 716, 720, 672 N.E.2d 1104, 1107 (1996) (\"stating that [cjourts have held that the location of the accident rather than the location of the negligence that caused the accident is dispositive on the applicability of the exclusion clause”); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Shofner, 573 So.2d 47, 50 (Fla.Dist. Ct.App.1990)."
} | 9,078,115 | a |
Thus, Katzenmoyer attempts to avoid the policy's exclusion of coverage for bodily injury arising out of accidents occurring "away from the insured premises." This strategy for avoiding the impact of the policy's exclusion of coverage for accidents occurring away from the residence premises has been rejected by other courts. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "672 N.E.2d 1104, 1107",
"parenthetical": "\"stating that [cjourts have held that the location of the accident rather than the location of the negligence that caused the accident is dispositive on the applicability of the exclusion clause\"",
"sentence": "See Federal Kemper Ins. Co. v. Derr, 386 Pa.Super. 382, 391-92, 563 A.2d 118, 123 (Pa.Super. 1989); Uguccioni v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 408 Pa.Super. 511, 514, 597 A.2d 149, 150 (Pa.Super.1991) (holding that \"the all-terrain vehicle being operated by Michael Pirrung was on an ‘insured location’ at the time of his fatal accident”); see also Farm Family Mutual Ins. Co. v. Whelpley, 54 Mass. App.Ct. 743, 746, 767 N.E.2d 1101, 1104 (2002); DeWitt v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 109 Ohio App.3d 716, 720, 672 N.E.2d 1104, 1107 (1996) (\"stating that [cjourts have held that the location of the accident rather than the location of the negligence that caused the accident is dispositive on the applicability of the exclusion clause”); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Shofner, 573 So.2d 47, 50 (Fla.Dist. Ct.App.1990)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "408 Pa.Super. 511, 514",
"parenthetical": "holding that \"the all-terrain vehicle being operated by Michael Pirrung was on an 'insured location' at the time of his fatal accident\"",
"sentence": "See Federal Kemper Ins. Co. v. Derr, 386 Pa.Super. 382, 391-92, 563 A.2d 118, 123 (Pa.Super. 1989); Uguccioni v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 408 Pa.Super. 511, 514, 597 A.2d 149, 150 (Pa.Super.1991) (holding that \"the all-terrain vehicle being operated by Michael Pirrung was on an ‘insured location’ at the time of his fatal accident”); see also Farm Family Mutual Ins. Co. v. Whelpley, 54 Mass. App.Ct. 743, 746, 767 N.E.2d 1101, 1104 (2002); DeWitt v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 109 Ohio App.3d 716, 720, 672 N.E.2d 1104, 1107 (1996) (\"stating that [cjourts have held that the location of the accident rather than the location of the negligence that caused the accident is dispositive on the applicability of the exclusion clause”); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Shofner, 573 So.2d 47, 50 (Fla.Dist. Ct.App.1990)."
} | 9,078,115 | b |
Thus, Katzenmoyer attempts to avoid the policy's exclusion of coverage for bodily injury arising out of accidents occurring "away from the insured premises." This strategy for avoiding the impact of the policy's exclusion of coverage for accidents occurring away from the residence premises has been rejected by other courts. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "109 Ohio App.3d 716, 720",
"parenthetical": "\"stating that [cjourts have held that the location of the accident rather than the location of the negligence that caused the accident is dispositive on the applicability of the exclusion clause\"",
"sentence": "See Federal Kemper Ins. Co. v. Derr, 386 Pa.Super. 382, 391-92, 563 A.2d 118, 123 (Pa.Super. 1989); Uguccioni v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 408 Pa.Super. 511, 514, 597 A.2d 149, 150 (Pa.Super.1991) (holding that \"the all-terrain vehicle being operated by Michael Pirrung was on an ‘insured location’ at the time of his fatal accident”); see also Farm Family Mutual Ins. Co. v. Whelpley, 54 Mass. App.Ct. 743, 746, 767 N.E.2d 1101, 1104 (2002); DeWitt v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 109 Ohio App.3d 716, 720, 672 N.E.2d 1104, 1107 (1996) (\"stating that [cjourts have held that the location of the accident rather than the location of the negligence that caused the accident is dispositive on the applicability of the exclusion clause”); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Shofner, 573 So.2d 47, 50 (Fla.Dist. Ct.App.1990)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "597 A.2d 149, 150",
"parenthetical": "holding that \"the all-terrain vehicle being operated by Michael Pirrung was on an 'insured location' at the time of his fatal accident\"",
"sentence": "See Federal Kemper Ins. Co. v. Derr, 386 Pa.Super. 382, 391-92, 563 A.2d 118, 123 (Pa.Super. 1989); Uguccioni v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 408 Pa.Super. 511, 514, 597 A.2d 149, 150 (Pa.Super.1991) (holding that \"the all-terrain vehicle being operated by Michael Pirrung was on an ‘insured location’ at the time of his fatal accident”); see also Farm Family Mutual Ins. Co. v. Whelpley, 54 Mass. App.Ct. 743, 746, 767 N.E.2d 1101, 1104 (2002); DeWitt v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 109 Ohio App.3d 716, 720, 672 N.E.2d 1104, 1107 (1996) (\"stating that [cjourts have held that the location of the accident rather than the location of the negligence that caused the accident is dispositive on the applicability of the exclusion clause”); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Shofner, 573 So.2d 47, 50 (Fla.Dist. Ct.App.1990)."
} | 9,078,115 | b |
Thus, Katzenmoyer attempts to avoid the policy's exclusion of coverage for bodily injury arising out of accidents occurring "away from the insured premises." This strategy for avoiding the impact of the policy's exclusion of coverage for accidents occurring away from the residence premises has been rejected by other courts. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "672 N.E.2d 1104, 1107",
"parenthetical": "\"stating that [cjourts have held that the location of the accident rather than the location of the negligence that caused the accident is dispositive on the applicability of the exclusion clause\"",
"sentence": "See Federal Kemper Ins. Co. v. Derr, 386 Pa.Super. 382, 391-92, 563 A.2d 118, 123 (Pa.Super. 1989); Uguccioni v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 408 Pa.Super. 511, 514, 597 A.2d 149, 150 (Pa.Super.1991) (holding that \"the all-terrain vehicle being operated by Michael Pirrung was on an ‘insured location’ at the time of his fatal accident”); see also Farm Family Mutual Ins. Co. v. Whelpley, 54 Mass. App.Ct. 743, 746, 767 N.E.2d 1101, 1104 (2002); DeWitt v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 109 Ohio App.3d 716, 720, 672 N.E.2d 1104, 1107 (1996) (\"stating that [cjourts have held that the location of the accident rather than the location of the negligence that caused the accident is dispositive on the applicability of the exclusion clause”); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Shofner, 573 So.2d 47, 50 (Fla.Dist. Ct.App.1990)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "597 A.2d 149, 150",
"parenthetical": "holding that \"the all-terrain vehicle being operated by Michael Pirrung was on an 'insured location' at the time of his fatal accident\"",
"sentence": "See Federal Kemper Ins. Co. v. Derr, 386 Pa.Super. 382, 391-92, 563 A.2d 118, 123 (Pa.Super. 1989); Uguccioni v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 408 Pa.Super. 511, 514, 597 A.2d 149, 150 (Pa.Super.1991) (holding that \"the all-terrain vehicle being operated by Michael Pirrung was on an ‘insured location’ at the time of his fatal accident”); see also Farm Family Mutual Ins. Co. v. Whelpley, 54 Mass. App.Ct. 743, 746, 767 N.E.2d 1101, 1104 (2002); DeWitt v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 109 Ohio App.3d 716, 720, 672 N.E.2d 1104, 1107 (1996) (\"stating that [cjourts have held that the location of the accident rather than the location of the negligence that caused the accident is dispositive on the applicability of the exclusion clause”); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Shofner, 573 So.2d 47, 50 (Fla.Dist. Ct.App.1990)."
} | 9,078,115 | b |
Detective Caffey's testimony regarding the Blood street gang--in particular, his opinion that the Appellants' conduct was consistent with that of Blood gang members--was highly probative of the conspiracy charge in Count One of the indictment. The essence of the conspiracy charge was that the Appellants were all members of the same street gang, and, as such, evidence of the Appellants' membership in or affiliation with the Blood gang tended to make the prosecution's theory of the case more likely. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "737 F.3d 1287, 1294",
"parenthetical": "stating that gang-affiliation testimony is admissible in cases where conspiracy is charged \"to prove the existence of a conspiracy and to show the basis of the relationship between the defendants] and witnesses who participated\" in the wrongful activity",
"sentence": "See United States v. Ross, 33 F.3d 1507, 1525 & n. 31 (11th Cir.1994) (uncharged acts of gang violence admissible as intertwined with, and probative of, conspiracy charge); United States v. Harrell, 737 F.2d 971, 978 (11th Cir. 1984) (gang evidence important in understanding existence, motives, and object of drug-trafficking conspiracy and means through which it was conducted); see also United States v. Archuleta, 737 F.3d 1287, 1294 (10th Cir.2013) (stating that gang-affiliation testimony is admissible in cases where conspiracy is charged “to prove the existence of a conspiracy and to show the basis of the relationship between the defendants] and witnesses who participated” in the wrongful activity)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "uncharged acts of gang violence admissible as intertwined with, and probative of, conspiracy charge",
"sentence": "See United States v. Ross, 33 F.3d 1507, 1525 & n. 31 (11th Cir.1994) (uncharged acts of gang violence admissible as intertwined with, and probative of, conspiracy charge); United States v. Harrell, 737 F.2d 971, 978 (11th Cir. 1984) (gang evidence important in understanding existence, motives, and object of drug-trafficking conspiracy and means through which it was conducted); see also United States v. Archuleta, 737 F.3d 1287, 1294 (10th Cir.2013) (stating that gang-affiliation testimony is admissible in cases where conspiracy is charged “to prove the existence of a conspiracy and to show the basis of the relationship between the defendants] and witnesses who participated” in the wrongful activity)."
} | 4,194,922 | b |
Detective Caffey's testimony regarding the Blood street gang--in particular, his opinion that the Appellants' conduct was consistent with that of Blood gang members--was highly probative of the conspiracy charge in Count One of the indictment. The essence of the conspiracy charge was that the Appellants were all members of the same street gang, and, as such, evidence of the Appellants' membership in or affiliation with the Blood gang tended to make the prosecution's theory of the case more likely. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "737 F.2d 971, 978",
"parenthetical": "gang evidence important in understanding existence, motives, and object of drug-trafficking conspiracy and means through which it was conducted",
"sentence": "See United States v. Ross, 33 F.3d 1507, 1525 & n. 31 (11th Cir.1994) (uncharged acts of gang violence admissible as intertwined with, and probative of, conspiracy charge); United States v. Harrell, 737 F.2d 971, 978 (11th Cir. 1984) (gang evidence important in understanding existence, motives, and object of drug-trafficking conspiracy and means through which it was conducted); see also United States v. Archuleta, 737 F.3d 1287, 1294 (10th Cir.2013) (stating that gang-affiliation testimony is admissible in cases where conspiracy is charged “to prove the existence of a conspiracy and to show the basis of the relationship between the defendants] and witnesses who participated” in the wrongful activity)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "737 F.3d 1287, 1294",
"parenthetical": "stating that gang-affiliation testimony is admissible in cases where conspiracy is charged \"to prove the existence of a conspiracy and to show the basis of the relationship between the defendants] and witnesses who participated\" in the wrongful activity",
"sentence": "See United States v. Ross, 33 F.3d 1507, 1525 & n. 31 (11th Cir.1994) (uncharged acts of gang violence admissible as intertwined with, and probative of, conspiracy charge); United States v. Harrell, 737 F.2d 971, 978 (11th Cir. 1984) (gang evidence important in understanding existence, motives, and object of drug-trafficking conspiracy and means through which it was conducted); see also United States v. Archuleta, 737 F.3d 1287, 1294 (10th Cir.2013) (stating that gang-affiliation testimony is admissible in cases where conspiracy is charged “to prove the existence of a conspiracy and to show the basis of the relationship between the defendants] and witnesses who participated” in the wrongful activity)."
} | 4,194,922 | a |
Even assuming, without deciding, that Mr. Sommer is qualified to testify as an expert on piloting and accident reconstruction, including engine failure analysis, the Court must still find that the process he used in forming his expert opinion is suffi ciently reliable under Daubert and its progeny. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "298 F.3d 1257, 1257",
"parenthetical": "holding that \"[rjulings on admissibility under Daubert inherently require the trial court to conduct an exacting analysis of the proffered expert's methodology\"",
"sentence": "See Quiet Tech. DC-8, Inc., 326 F.3d at 1342 (stating that “one may be considered an expert but still offer unreliable testimony”); cf. McCorvey, 298 F.3d at 1257 (holding that “[rjulings on admissibility under Daubert inherently require the trial court to conduct an exacting analysis of the proffered expert’s methodology”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "326 F.3d 1342, 1342",
"parenthetical": "stating that \"one may be considered an expert but still offer unreliable testimony\"",
"sentence": "See Quiet Tech. DC-8, Inc., 326 F.3d at 1342 (stating that “one may be considered an expert but still offer unreliable testimony”); cf. McCorvey, 298 F.3d at 1257 (holding that “[rjulings on admissibility under Daubert inherently require the trial court to conduct an exacting analysis of the proffered expert’s methodology”)."
} | 4,222,653 | b |
P 7 Law enforcement officers have wide latitude to approach people and engage them in consensual conversation. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "501 U.S. 429, 437",
"parenthetical": "explaining no seizure occurs when police ask to examine identification",
"sentence": "See I.N.S. v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 216, 218, 104 S.Ct. 1758, 80 L.Ed.2d 247 (1984) (holding law enforcement request for identification not tantamount to seizure; finding no constitutional violation when law enforcement conduct “consisted simply of questioning employees and arresting those they had probable cause to believe were unlawfully present”); see also Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev., Humboldt County., 542 U.S. 177, 188-89, 124 S.Ct. 2451,159 L.Ed.2d 292 (2004) (upholding state law requiring disclosure of identity to officers); Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 437, 111 S.Ct. 2382, 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991) (explaining no seizure occurs when police ask to examine identification)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "460 U.S. 491, 497",
"parenthetical": "holding officers do not violate Fourth Amendment by approaching citizen in public place and asking permission to question",
"sentence": "See Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 497, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983) (holding officers do not violate Fourth Amendment by approaching citizen in public place and asking permission to question). They are also free to request identification."
} | 4,058,366 | b |
P 7 Law enforcement officers have wide latitude to approach people and engage them in consensual conversation. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "460 U.S. 491, 497",
"parenthetical": "holding officers do not violate Fourth Amendment by approaching citizen in public place and asking permission to question",
"sentence": "See Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 497, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983) (holding officers do not violate Fourth Amendment by approaching citizen in public place and asking permission to question). They are also free to request identification."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "explaining no seizure occurs when police ask to examine identification",
"sentence": "See I.N.S. v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 216, 218, 104 S.Ct. 1758, 80 L.Ed.2d 247 (1984) (holding law enforcement request for identification not tantamount to seizure; finding no constitutional violation when law enforcement conduct “consisted simply of questioning employees and arresting those they had probable cause to believe were unlawfully present”); see also Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev., Humboldt County., 542 U.S. 177, 188-89, 124 S.Ct. 2451,159 L.Ed.2d 292 (2004) (upholding state law requiring disclosure of identity to officers); Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 437, 111 S.Ct. 2382, 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991) (explaining no seizure occurs when police ask to examine identification)."
} | 4,058,366 | a |
P 7 Law enforcement officers have wide latitude to approach people and engage them in consensual conversation. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "explaining no seizure occurs when police ask to examine identification",
"sentence": "See I.N.S. v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 216, 218, 104 S.Ct. 1758, 80 L.Ed.2d 247 (1984) (holding law enforcement request for identification not tantamount to seizure; finding no constitutional violation when law enforcement conduct “consisted simply of questioning employees and arresting those they had probable cause to believe were unlawfully present”); see also Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev., Humboldt County., 542 U.S. 177, 188-89, 124 S.Ct. 2451,159 L.Ed.2d 292 (2004) (upholding state law requiring disclosure of identity to officers); Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 437, 111 S.Ct. 2382, 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991) (explaining no seizure occurs when police ask to examine identification)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "460 U.S. 491, 497",
"parenthetical": "holding officers do not violate Fourth Amendment by approaching citizen in public place and asking permission to question",
"sentence": "See Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 497, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983) (holding officers do not violate Fourth Amendment by approaching citizen in public place and asking permission to question). They are also free to request identification."
} | 4,058,366 | b |
P 7 Law enforcement officers have wide latitude to approach people and engage them in consensual conversation. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "holding officers do not violate Fourth Amendment by approaching citizen in public place and asking permission to question",
"sentence": "See Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 497, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983) (holding officers do not violate Fourth Amendment by approaching citizen in public place and asking permission to question). They are also free to request identification."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "501 U.S. 429, 437",
"parenthetical": "explaining no seizure occurs when police ask to examine identification",
"sentence": "See I.N.S. v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 216, 218, 104 S.Ct. 1758, 80 L.Ed.2d 247 (1984) (holding law enforcement request for identification not tantamount to seizure; finding no constitutional violation when law enforcement conduct “consisted simply of questioning employees and arresting those they had probable cause to believe were unlawfully present”); see also Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev., Humboldt County., 542 U.S. 177, 188-89, 124 S.Ct. 2451,159 L.Ed.2d 292 (2004) (upholding state law requiring disclosure of identity to officers); Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 437, 111 S.Ct. 2382, 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991) (explaining no seizure occurs when police ask to examine identification)."
} | 4,058,366 | a |
P 7 Law enforcement officers have wide latitude to approach people and engage them in consensual conversation. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "holding officers do not violate Fourth Amendment by approaching citizen in public place and asking permission to question",
"sentence": "See Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 497, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983) (holding officers do not violate Fourth Amendment by approaching citizen in public place and asking permission to question). They are also free to request identification."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "explaining no seizure occurs when police ask to examine identification",
"sentence": "See I.N.S. v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 216, 218, 104 S.Ct. 1758, 80 L.Ed.2d 247 (1984) (holding law enforcement request for identification not tantamount to seizure; finding no constitutional violation when law enforcement conduct “consisted simply of questioning employees and arresting those they had probable cause to believe were unlawfully present”); see also Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev., Humboldt County., 542 U.S. 177, 188-89, 124 S.Ct. 2451,159 L.Ed.2d 292 (2004) (upholding state law requiring disclosure of identity to officers); Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 437, 111 S.Ct. 2382, 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991) (explaining no seizure occurs when police ask to examine identification)."
} | 4,058,366 | a |
P 7 Law enforcement officers have wide latitude to approach people and engage them in consensual conversation. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "explaining no seizure occurs when police ask to examine identification",
"sentence": "See I.N.S. v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 216, 218, 104 S.Ct. 1758, 80 L.Ed.2d 247 (1984) (holding law enforcement request for identification not tantamount to seizure; finding no constitutional violation when law enforcement conduct “consisted simply of questioning employees and arresting those they had probable cause to believe were unlawfully present”); see also Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev., Humboldt County., 542 U.S. 177, 188-89, 124 S.Ct. 2451,159 L.Ed.2d 292 (2004) (upholding state law requiring disclosure of identity to officers); Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 437, 111 S.Ct. 2382, 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991) (explaining no seizure occurs when police ask to examine identification)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "holding officers do not violate Fourth Amendment by approaching citizen in public place and asking permission to question",
"sentence": "See Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 497, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983) (holding officers do not violate Fourth Amendment by approaching citizen in public place and asking permission to question). They are also free to request identification."
} | 4,058,366 | b |
P 7 Law enforcement officers have wide latitude to approach people and engage them in consensual conversation. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "holding officers do not violate Fourth Amendment by approaching citizen in public place and asking permission to question",
"sentence": "See Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 497, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983) (holding officers do not violate Fourth Amendment by approaching citizen in public place and asking permission to question). They are also free to request identification."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "501 U.S. 429, 437",
"parenthetical": "explaining no seizure occurs when police ask to examine identification",
"sentence": "See I.N.S. v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 216, 218, 104 S.Ct. 1758, 80 L.Ed.2d 247 (1984) (holding law enforcement request for identification not tantamount to seizure; finding no constitutional violation when law enforcement conduct “consisted simply of questioning employees and arresting those they had probable cause to believe were unlawfully present”); see also Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev., Humboldt County., 542 U.S. 177, 188-89, 124 S.Ct. 2451,159 L.Ed.2d 292 (2004) (upholding state law requiring disclosure of identity to officers); Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 437, 111 S.Ct. 2382, 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991) (explaining no seizure occurs when police ask to examine identification)."
} | 4,058,366 | a |
P 7 Law enforcement officers have wide latitude to approach people and engage them in consensual conversation. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "holding officers do not violate Fourth Amendment by approaching citizen in public place and asking permission to question",
"sentence": "See Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 497, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983) (holding officers do not violate Fourth Amendment by approaching citizen in public place and asking permission to question). They are also free to request identification."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "explaining no seizure occurs when police ask to examine identification",
"sentence": "See I.N.S. v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 216, 218, 104 S.Ct. 1758, 80 L.Ed.2d 247 (1984) (holding law enforcement request for identification not tantamount to seizure; finding no constitutional violation when law enforcement conduct “consisted simply of questioning employees and arresting those they had probable cause to believe were unlawfully present”); see also Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev., Humboldt County., 542 U.S. 177, 188-89, 124 S.Ct. 2451,159 L.Ed.2d 292 (2004) (upholding state law requiring disclosure of identity to officers); Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 437, 111 S.Ct. 2382, 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991) (explaining no seizure occurs when police ask to examine identification)."
} | 4,058,366 | a |
P 7 Law enforcement officers have wide latitude to approach people and engage them in consensual conversation. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "explaining no seizure occurs when police ask to examine identification",
"sentence": "See I.N.S. v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 216, 218, 104 S.Ct. 1758, 80 L.Ed.2d 247 (1984) (holding law enforcement request for identification not tantamount to seizure; finding no constitutional violation when law enforcement conduct “consisted simply of questioning employees and arresting those they had probable cause to believe were unlawfully present”); see also Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev., Humboldt County., 542 U.S. 177, 188-89, 124 S.Ct. 2451,159 L.Ed.2d 292 (2004) (upholding state law requiring disclosure of identity to officers); Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 437, 111 S.Ct. 2382, 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991) (explaining no seizure occurs when police ask to examine identification)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "holding officers do not violate Fourth Amendment by approaching citizen in public place and asking permission to question",
"sentence": "See Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 497, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983) (holding officers do not violate Fourth Amendment by approaching citizen in public place and asking permission to question). They are also free to request identification."
} | 4,058,366 | b |
Here, before the revelation of Dookhan's misconduct, the petitioners and the Commonwealth entered into plea agreements that both parties considered to be mutually advantageous and fair. The petitioners agreed to waive various constitutional rights associated with proceeding to trial, and to relieve the Commonwealth of its burden of proving the petitioners' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "470 Mass. 464, 468",
"parenthetical": "\"In a criminal case, due process requires that the Commonwealth prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt\"",
"sentence": "See also Commonwealth v. Russell, 470 Mass. 464, 468 (2015) (“In a criminal case, due process requires that the Commonwealth prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "447 Mass. 625, 628",
"parenthetical": "guilty plea constitutes waiver of three constitutional rights: right to jury trial, right to confront one's accusers, and privilege against self-incrimination",
"sentence": "See Commonwealth v. Lopez, 447 Mass. 625, 628 (2006) (guilty plea constitutes waiver of three constitutional rights: right to jury trial, right to confront one’s accusers, and privilege against self-incrimination)."
} | 4,319,858 | b |
M.B.M. The magistrate properly granted summary judgment on this claim. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "268 Ark. 281, 281",
"parenthetical": "summary judgment was inappropriate where employer withheld discharged employee's paycheck even after employee successfully passed lie detector test",
"sentence": "See Sterling Drug, Inc. v. Oxford, 294 Ark. 239, 743 S.W.2d 380, 382-83 (1988) (employer’s conduct allegedly designed to force suspected “whistle blower” to resign was insufficient to support jury verdict for outrage); cf. Counce, 268 Ark. at 281, 596 S.W.2d at 688 (summary judgment was inappropriate where employer withheld discharged employee’s paycheck even after employee successfully passed lie detector test)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "employer's conduct allegedly designed to force suspected \"whistle blower\" to resign was insufficient to support jury verdict for outrage",
"sentence": "See Sterling Drug, Inc. v. Oxford, 294 Ark. 239, 743 S.W.2d 380, 382-83 (1988) (employer’s conduct allegedly designed to force suspected “whistle blower” to resign was insufficient to support jury verdict for outrage); cf. Counce, 268 Ark. at 281, 596 S.W.2d at 688 (summary judgment was inappropriate where employer withheld discharged employee’s paycheck even after employee successfully passed lie detector test)."
} | 10,530,607 | b |
M.B.M. The magistrate properly granted summary judgment on this claim. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "employer's conduct allegedly designed to force suspected \"whistle blower\" to resign was insufficient to support jury verdict for outrage",
"sentence": "See Sterling Drug, Inc. v. Oxford, 294 Ark. 239, 743 S.W.2d 380, 382-83 (1988) (employer’s conduct allegedly designed to force suspected “whistle blower” to resign was insufficient to support jury verdict for outrage); cf. Counce, 268 Ark. at 281, 596 S.W.2d at 688 (summary judgment was inappropriate where employer withheld discharged employee’s paycheck even after employee successfully passed lie detector test)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "596 S.W.2d 688, 688",
"parenthetical": "summary judgment was inappropriate where employer withheld discharged employee's paycheck even after employee successfully passed lie detector test",
"sentence": "See Sterling Drug, Inc. v. Oxford, 294 Ark. 239, 743 S.W.2d 380, 382-83 (1988) (employer’s conduct allegedly designed to force suspected “whistle blower” to resign was insufficient to support jury verdict for outrage); cf. Counce, 268 Ark. at 281, 596 S.W.2d at 688 (summary judgment was inappropriate where employer withheld discharged employee’s paycheck even after employee successfully passed lie detector test)."
} | 10,530,607 | a |
M.B.M. The magistrate properly granted summary judgment on this claim. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "743 S.W.2d 380, 382-83",
"parenthetical": "employer's conduct allegedly designed to force suspected \"whistle blower\" to resign was insufficient to support jury verdict for outrage",
"sentence": "See Sterling Drug, Inc. v. Oxford, 294 Ark. 239, 743 S.W.2d 380, 382-83 (1988) (employer’s conduct allegedly designed to force suspected “whistle blower” to resign was insufficient to support jury verdict for outrage); cf. Counce, 268 Ark. at 281, 596 S.W.2d at 688 (summary judgment was inappropriate where employer withheld discharged employee’s paycheck even after employee successfully passed lie detector test)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "268 Ark. 281, 281",
"parenthetical": "summary judgment was inappropriate where employer withheld discharged employee's paycheck even after employee successfully passed lie detector test",
"sentence": "See Sterling Drug, Inc. v. Oxford, 294 Ark. 239, 743 S.W.2d 380, 382-83 (1988) (employer’s conduct allegedly designed to force suspected “whistle blower” to resign was insufficient to support jury verdict for outrage); cf. Counce, 268 Ark. at 281, 596 S.W.2d at 688 (summary judgment was inappropriate where employer withheld discharged employee’s paycheck even after employee successfully passed lie detector test)."
} | 10,530,607 | a |
M.B.M. The magistrate properly granted summary judgment on this claim. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "596 S.W.2d 688, 688",
"parenthetical": "summary judgment was inappropriate where employer withheld discharged employee's paycheck even after employee successfully passed lie detector test",
"sentence": "See Sterling Drug, Inc. v. Oxford, 294 Ark. 239, 743 S.W.2d 380, 382-83 (1988) (employer’s conduct allegedly designed to force suspected “whistle blower” to resign was insufficient to support jury verdict for outrage); cf. Counce, 268 Ark. at 281, 596 S.W.2d at 688 (summary judgment was inappropriate where employer withheld discharged employee’s paycheck even after employee successfully passed lie detector test)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "743 S.W.2d 380, 382-83",
"parenthetical": "employer's conduct allegedly designed to force suspected \"whistle blower\" to resign was insufficient to support jury verdict for outrage",
"sentence": "See Sterling Drug, Inc. v. Oxford, 294 Ark. 239, 743 S.W.2d 380, 382-83 (1988) (employer’s conduct allegedly designed to force suspected “whistle blower” to resign was insufficient to support jury verdict for outrage); cf. Counce, 268 Ark. at 281, 596 S.W.2d at 688 (summary judgment was inappropriate where employer withheld discharged employee’s paycheck even after employee successfully passed lie detector test)."
} | 10,530,607 | b |
To state a due process claim, a plaintiff must allege a deprivation of a property or liberty interest protected by the Fifth Amendment. In the immigration context, we have repeatedly concluded that where an alien seeks discretionary relief, there is no such constitutionally protected liberty or property interest. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "634 F.2d 207, 211-12",
"parenthetical": "rejecting due process claim involving Secretary of State's revocation of consular non-immigrant visa because revocation does not result in immediate deportation and deportation proceedings have \"significant procedural safeguards\"",
"sentence": "See Scheerer v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 513 F.3d 1244, 1253 (11th Cir.2008) (involving denial of motion to reopen removal proceedings so alien could apply for adjustment of status); Garcia v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 329 F.3d 1217, 1223-24 (11th Cir.2003) (involving waiver of ex-cludability); Zafar v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 461 F.3d 1357, 1367 (11th Cir.2006) (involving denial of continuance of removal proceedings); Tefel v. Reno, 180 F.3d 1286, 1299-1302 (11th Cir.1999) (involving denial of applications for suspension of deportation); see also Knoetze v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 634 F.2d 207, 211-12 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981) (rejecting due process claim involving Secretary of State’s revocation of consular non-immigrant visa because revocation does not result in immediate deportation and deportation proceedings have “significant procedural safeguards”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "513 F.3d 1244, 1253",
"parenthetical": "involving denial of motion to reopen removal proceedings so alien could apply for adjustment of status",
"sentence": "See Scheerer v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 513 F.3d 1244, 1253 (11th Cir.2008) (involving denial of motion to reopen removal proceedings so alien could apply for adjustment of status); Garcia v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 329 F.3d 1217, 1223-24 (11th Cir.2003) (involving waiver of ex-cludability); Zafar v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 461 F.3d 1357, 1367 (11th Cir.2006) (involving denial of continuance of removal proceedings); Tefel v. Reno, 180 F.3d 1286, 1299-1302 (11th Cir.1999) (involving denial of applications for suspension of deportation); see also Knoetze v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 634 F.2d 207, 211-12 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981) (rejecting due process claim involving Secretary of State’s revocation of consular non-immigrant visa because revocation does not result in immediate deportation and deportation proceedings have “significant procedural safeguards”)."
} | 3,916,005 | b |
Bryan also complains that Lent removed Bryan's flight jacket from his work space. Such an action is trivial and cannot support a hostile work environment claim. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "524 U.S. 775, 788",
"parenthetical": "noting that Title VII does not protect against the \"ordinary tribulations of the workplace\"",
"sentence": "See Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998) (noting that Title VII does not protect against the “ordinary tribulations of the workplace”); see also Burlington Northern, 126 S.Ct. at 2407 (“An employee’s decision to report discriminatory behavior cannot immunize that employee from those petty slights or minor annoyances that often take place at work and that all employees experience.”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "126 S.Ct. 2407, 2407",
"parenthetical": "\"An employee's decision to report discriminatory behavior cannot immunize that employee from those petty slights or minor annoyances that often take place at work and that all employees experience.\"",
"sentence": "See Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998) (noting that Title VII does not protect against the “ordinary tribulations of the workplace”); see also Burlington Northern, 126 S.Ct. at 2407 (“An employee’s decision to report discriminatory behavior cannot immunize that employee from those petty slights or minor annoyances that often take place at work and that all employees experience.”)."
} | 3,986,480 | a |
Bryan also complains that Lent removed Bryan's flight jacket from his work space. Such an action is trivial and cannot support a hostile work environment claim. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that Title VII does not protect against the \"ordinary tribulations of the workplace\"",
"sentence": "See Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998) (noting that Title VII does not protect against the “ordinary tribulations of the workplace”); see also Burlington Northern, 126 S.Ct. at 2407 (“An employee’s decision to report discriminatory behavior cannot immunize that employee from those petty slights or minor annoyances that often take place at work and that all employees experience.”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "126 S.Ct. 2407, 2407",
"parenthetical": "\"An employee's decision to report discriminatory behavior cannot immunize that employee from those petty slights or minor annoyances that often take place at work and that all employees experience.\"",
"sentence": "See Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998) (noting that Title VII does not protect against the “ordinary tribulations of the workplace”); see also Burlington Northern, 126 S.Ct. at 2407 (“An employee’s decision to report discriminatory behavior cannot immunize that employee from those petty slights or minor annoyances that often take place at work and that all employees experience.”)."
} | 3,986,480 | a |
Bryan also complains that Lent removed Bryan's flight jacket from his work space. Such an action is trivial and cannot support a hostile work environment claim. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "126 S.Ct. 2407, 2407",
"parenthetical": "\"An employee's decision to report discriminatory behavior cannot immunize that employee from those petty slights or minor annoyances that often take place at work and that all employees experience.\"",
"sentence": "See Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998) (noting that Title VII does not protect against the “ordinary tribulations of the workplace”); see also Burlington Northern, 126 S.Ct. at 2407 (“An employee’s decision to report discriminatory behavior cannot immunize that employee from those petty slights or minor annoyances that often take place at work and that all employees experience.”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that Title VII does not protect against the \"ordinary tribulations of the workplace\"",
"sentence": "See Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998) (noting that Title VII does not protect against the “ordinary tribulations of the workplace”); see also Burlington Northern, 126 S.Ct. at 2407 (“An employee’s decision to report discriminatory behavior cannot immunize that employee from those petty slights or minor annoyances that often take place at work and that all employees experience.”)."
} | 3,986,480 | b |
While it is this Court's view that the statute is not ambiguous, the Court can understand why some question as to the meaning of the 5 V.I.C. SS 3734 exists. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "68 Idaho 423, 439",
"parenthetical": "noting that a title may be resorted to as an aid to construction",
"sentence": "See Keenan v. Price, 68 Idaho 423, 439, 195 P.2d 662 (1948) (noting that a title may be resorted to as an aid to construction); 2A Sutherland Statutory Construction § 47:3 (7th ed.) (“Titles have a communicative function."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "765 F. Supp. 261, 261",
"parenthetical": "\"It is a fundamental principle of statutory construction that the court must give effect, if possible, to every provision of a statute so that no part will be left inoperative, superfluous, void, or insignificant\"",
"sentence": "Specifically, reading 5 V.I.C. § 3734 as a purely procedural requirement that does not authorize the expungement of misdemeanor convictions, has the following implications on the statute as a whole: (1) 5 V.I.C. § 3734 is partially duplicative of the section immediately following it, 5 V.I.C. § 3735; (2) the language in 5 V.I.C. § 3734 “under this section,” (emphasis added) is meaningless because 5 V.I.C. § 3734, absent the title, would provide no' circumstances under which a person could seek expungement under that particular section, see Abramson 765 F. Supp. at 261 (“It is a fundamental principle of statutory construction that the court must give effect, if possible, to every provision of a statute so that no part will be left inoperative, superfluous, void, or insignificant”); (3) 5 V.I.C. § 3739 states that the “Superior Court may order the disclosure of the expunged conviction records .... ” (emphasis added), which is contradictory because the statute does not authorize expungement of convictions; and (4) ■ although titles of a statute are not considered law under 1 V.I.C. § 45, they may be an indication of legislative intent when a statute is otherwise ambiguous."
} | 3,677,104 | b |
While it is this Court's view that the statute is not ambiguous, the Court can understand why some question as to the meaning of the 5 V.I.C. SS 3734 exists. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "765 F. Supp. 261, 261",
"parenthetical": "\"It is a fundamental principle of statutory construction that the court must give effect, if possible, to every provision of a statute so that no part will be left inoperative, superfluous, void, or insignificant\"",
"sentence": "Specifically, reading 5 V.I.C. § 3734 as a purely procedural requirement that does not authorize the expungement of misdemeanor convictions, has the following implications on the statute as a whole: (1) 5 V.I.C. § 3734 is partially duplicative of the section immediately following it, 5 V.I.C. § 3735; (2) the language in 5 V.I.C. § 3734 “under this section,” (emphasis added) is meaningless because 5 V.I.C. § 3734, absent the title, would provide no' circumstances under which a person could seek expungement under that particular section, see Abramson 765 F. Supp. at 261 (“It is a fundamental principle of statutory construction that the court must give effect, if possible, to every provision of a statute so that no part will be left inoperative, superfluous, void, or insignificant”); (3) 5 V.I.C. § 3739 states that the “Superior Court may order the disclosure of the expunged conviction records .... ” (emphasis added), which is contradictory because the statute does not authorize expungement of convictions; and (4) ■ although titles of a statute are not considered law under 1 V.I.C. § 45, they may be an indication of legislative intent when a statute is otherwise ambiguous."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that a title may be resorted to as an aid to construction",
"sentence": "See Keenan v. Price, 68 Idaho 423, 439, 195 P.2d 662 (1948) (noting that a title may be resorted to as an aid to construction); 2A Sutherland Statutory Construction § 47:3 (7th ed.) (“Titles have a communicative function."
} | 3,677,104 | a |
First, Berry's undisputed awareness of the allegedly dangerous condition is fatal to the proximate-cause element of his failure-to-warn claim. The facts show that Berry had the knowledge he claims E-Z Trench should have provided, and it actually led him to use the bungee cord. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "37 F.3d 1076, 1076",
"parenthetical": "\"plaintiff must show that adequate warning would have altered conduct\"",
"sentence": "See Austin, 361 F.3d at 868-870 (finding proximate cause had not been shown where decedent raised aluminum mast under power lines despite warning labels and safety training advising against doing so) (citing Wolf v. Stanley Works, 757 So.2d 316, 323 (Miss.Ct.App.2000) (proximate cause not shown where “there was no evidence that desired warning would have had any causative impact,” citing Wyeth Labs., Inc. v. Fortenberry, 530 So.2d 688, 691 (Miss.1988))); see also Little, 37 F.3d at 1076 (“plaintiff must show that adequate warning would have altered conduct”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "361 F.3d 868, 868-870",
"parenthetical": "finding proximate cause had not been shown where decedent raised aluminum mast under power lines despite warning labels and safety training advising against doing so",
"sentence": "See Austin, 361 F.3d at 868-870 (finding proximate cause had not been shown where decedent raised aluminum mast under power lines despite warning labels and safety training advising against doing so) (citing Wolf v. Stanley Works, 757 So.2d 316, 323 (Miss.Ct.App.2000) (proximate cause not shown where “there was no evidence that desired warning would have had any causative impact,” citing Wyeth Labs., Inc. v. Fortenberry, 530 So.2d 688, 691 (Miss.1988))); see also Little, 37 F.3d at 1076 (“plaintiff must show that adequate warning would have altered conduct”)."
} | 3,822,669 | b |
Although the agents testified that they did not have time to comply with Miranda, the Court is skeptical that over the course of more than two hours the agents had no time to advise Defendant of his fundamental rights. In short, the agents' failure to give Faulkingham a Miranda warning was negligent, at best. Moreover, considering the nature of the interrogation, the complete lack of any protective device, along with Defendant's impending heroin withdrawal, it is difficult to conclude that Defendant's cooperation was truly the product of his free choice. | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": "145 F.3d 405, 407",
"parenthetical": "explaining that \"only confessions procured by coercive official tactics [along with evidence derived from such confessions] should be excluded\" and that \" '[f]ree choice' is no longer a touchstone\"",
"sentence": "But see United States v. Byram, 145 F.3d 405, 407 (1st Cir.1998) (explaining that “only confessions procured by coercive official tactics [along with evidence derived from such confessions] should be excluded” and that “ ‘[f]ree choice’ is no longer a touchstone”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "384 U.S. 458, 458",
"parenthetical": "explaining that \"[u]nless adequate protective devices are employed to dispel the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings, no statement obtained from the defendant can truly be the product of his free choice.\"",
"sentence": "See Miranda, 384 U.S. at 458, 86 S.Ct. 1602 (explaining that “[u]nless adequate protective devices are employed to dispel the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings, no statement obtained from the defendant can truly be the product of his free choice.”)."
} | 9,492,880 | b |
Although the agents testified that they did not have time to comply with Miranda, the Court is skeptical that over the course of more than two hours the agents had no time to advise Defendant of his fundamental rights. In short, the agents' failure to give Faulkingham a Miranda warning was negligent, at best. Moreover, considering the nature of the interrogation, the complete lack of any protective device, along with Defendant's impending heroin withdrawal, it is difficult to conclude that Defendant's cooperation was truly the product of his free choice. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "explaining that \"[u]nless adequate protective devices are employed to dispel the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings, no statement obtained from the defendant can truly be the product of his free choice.\"",
"sentence": "See Miranda, 384 U.S. at 458, 86 S.Ct. 1602 (explaining that “[u]nless adequate protective devices are employed to dispel the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings, no statement obtained from the defendant can truly be the product of his free choice.”)."
} | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": "145 F.3d 405, 407",
"parenthetical": "explaining that \"only confessions procured by coercive official tactics [along with evidence derived from such confessions] should be excluded\" and that \" '[f]ree choice' is no longer a touchstone\"",
"sentence": "But see United States v. Byram, 145 F.3d 405, 407 (1st Cir.1998) (explaining that “only confessions procured by coercive official tactics [along with evidence derived from such confessions] should be excluded” and that “ ‘[f]ree choice’ is no longer a touchstone”)."
} | 9,492,880 | a |
In both cases, "[t]he DOE and SRO effectively cast the Parent's argument as an objection that the CSE did not adopt her opinion, rather than one related to her meaningful participation." | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "210 F.Supp.3d 573, 573",
"parenthetical": "finding procedural violation of the IDEA where the Department failed to \"g[i]ve due consideration\" to the parents view that the student required a more restrictive ratio than was recommended by the DOE",
"sentence": "E.H., 164 F.Supp.3d at 552; see also S.Y., 210 F.Supp.3d, at 573, 2016 WL 5806859, at *9 (finding procedural violation of the IDEA where the Department failed to “g[i]ve due consideration” to the parents view that the student required a more restrictive ratio than was recommended by the DOE)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "2015 WL 4597545, at *8",
"parenthetical": "and to refer J.G.'s case to the CBST if so",
"sentence": "Id. at 552. While it is true that “[m]ere parental disagreement with a school district’s IEP and placement recommendation does not amount to a denial of meaningful participation,” A.P., 2015 WL 4597545, at *8, the CSE still has a procedural obligation to consider whether a student requires a more restrictive ratio than is available through public schools (and to refer J.G.’s case to the CBST if so). “If the CSE refused to consider a more restrictive ratio than its public offerings were able to provide, that would amount to predetermination of [J.G.’s] education program regardless of what [J.G.] needed or what [her] Parent contributed to the process.”"
} | 12,269,273 | b |
In both cases, "[t]he DOE and SRO effectively cast the Parent's argument as an objection that the CSE did not adopt her opinion, rather than one related to her meaningful participation." | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "2016 WL 5806859, at *9",
"parenthetical": "finding procedural violation of the IDEA where the Department failed to \"g[i]ve due consideration\" to the parents view that the student required a more restrictive ratio than was recommended by the DOE",
"sentence": "E.H., 164 F.Supp.3d at 552; see also S.Y., 210 F.Supp.3d, at 573, 2016 WL 5806859, at *9 (finding procedural violation of the IDEA where the Department failed to “g[i]ve due consideration” to the parents view that the student required a more restrictive ratio than was recommended by the DOE)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "2015 WL 4597545, at *8",
"parenthetical": "and to refer J.G.'s case to the CBST if so",
"sentence": "Id. at 552. While it is true that “[m]ere parental disagreement with a school district’s IEP and placement recommendation does not amount to a denial of meaningful participation,” A.P., 2015 WL 4597545, at *8, the CSE still has a procedural obligation to consider whether a student requires a more restrictive ratio than is available through public schools (and to refer J.G.’s case to the CBST if so). “If the CSE refused to consider a more restrictive ratio than its public offerings were able to provide, that would amount to predetermination of [J.G.’s] education program regardless of what [J.G.] needed or what [her] Parent contributed to the process.”"
} | 12,269,273 | b |
We lack authority to modify the judgment in defendants' favor, however, because they have not filed a cross appeal and thus cannot enlarge their rights in this court. But the fact that the district court's rationale would have logically dictated a judgment more favorable to defendants does not preclude defendants from relying on that rationale to support the judgment they did receive. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "93 F.3d 219, 224",
"parenthetical": "noting that a cross appeal is unnecessary so long as the appellee does not seek to modify the judgment in its favor",
"sentence": "See United States v. Neal, 93 F.3d 219, 224 (6th Cir.1996) (noting that a cross appeal is unnecessary so long as the appellee does not seek to modify the judgment in its favor); see also Conover v. Lein, 87 F.3d 905, 908-09 (7th Cir.1996) (affirming dismissal without prejudice after concluding that the dismissal should have been with prejudice); Arvie v. Broussard, 42 F.3d 249, 250-51 (5th Cir.1994) (same)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "87 F.3d 905, 908-09",
"parenthetical": "affirming dismissal without prejudice after concluding that the dismissal should have been with prejudice",
"sentence": "See United States v. Neal, 93 F.3d 219, 224 (6th Cir.1996) (noting that a cross appeal is unnecessary so long as the appellee does not seek to modify the judgment in its favor); see also Conover v. Lein, 87 F.3d 905, 908-09 (7th Cir.1996) (affirming dismissal without prejudice after concluding that the dismissal should have been with prejudice); Arvie v. Broussard, 42 F.3d 249, 250-51 (5th Cir.1994) (same)."
} | 4,132,780 | a |
P 14. Thus, in a sufficiency of the evidence review under Randall II and Wilinski, we give deference to the trial court's determination of credibility and evaluation of the evidence and draw on its reasoning and adopt the trial court's reasonable inferences. If there are multiple reasonable inferences, we will adopt the inference that the trial court adopts. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "53 Wis. 2d 218, 223",
"parenthetical": "\"[I]f more than one reasonable inference can be drawn from the evidence, the inference which supports the finding is the one that must be adopted.\"",
"sentence": "See Randall II, 222 Wis. 2d at 60 (\"we will affirm, if there is any credible evidence, or reasonable inference therefrom, upon which the [fact-finder] could have based its decision\"); see also Bautista v. State, 53 Wis. 2d 218, 223, 191 N.W.2d 725 (1971) (\"[I]f more than one reasonable inference can be drawn from the evidence, the inference which supports the finding is the one that must be adopted.\")."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "222 Wis. 2d 60, 60",
"parenthetical": "\"we will affirm, if there is any credible evidence, or reasonable inference therefrom, upon which the [fact-finder] could have based its decision\"",
"sentence": "See Randall II, 222 Wis. 2d at 60 (\"we will affirm, if there is any credible evidence, or reasonable inference therefrom, upon which the [fact-finder] could have based its decision\"); see also Bautista v. State, 53 Wis. 2d 218, 223, 191 N.W.2d 725 (1971) (\"[I]f more than one reasonable inference can be drawn from the evidence, the inference which supports the finding is the one that must be adopted.\")."
} | 4,017,311 | b |
P 14. Thus, in a sufficiency of the evidence review under Randall II and Wilinski, we give deference to the trial court's determination of credibility and evaluation of the evidence and draw on its reasoning and adopt the trial court's reasonable inferences. If there are multiple reasonable inferences, we will adopt the inference that the trial court adopts. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "222 Wis. 2d 60, 60",
"parenthetical": "\"we will affirm, if there is any credible evidence, or reasonable inference therefrom, upon which the [fact-finder] could have based its decision\"",
"sentence": "See Randall II, 222 Wis. 2d at 60 (\"we will affirm, if there is any credible evidence, or reasonable inference therefrom, upon which the [fact-finder] could have based its decision\"); see also Bautista v. State, 53 Wis. 2d 218, 223, 191 N.W.2d 725 (1971) (\"[I]f more than one reasonable inference can be drawn from the evidence, the inference which supports the finding is the one that must be adopted.\")."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"[I]f more than one reasonable inference can be drawn from the evidence, the inference which supports the finding is the one that must be adopted.\"",
"sentence": "See Randall II, 222 Wis. 2d at 60 (\"we will affirm, if there is any credible evidence, or reasonable inference therefrom, upon which the [fact-finder] could have based its decision\"); see also Bautista v. State, 53 Wis. 2d 218, 223, 191 N.W.2d 725 (1971) (\"[I]f more than one reasonable inference can be drawn from the evidence, the inference which supports the finding is the one that must be adopted.\")."
} | 4,017,311 | a |
[Plaintiff] must produce some independent evidence showing that the company's motives are not believable."). Moreover, plaintiffs 1999 performance review, in which defendant rated him as meeting its expectations, occurred three weeks before he was terminated. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "172 F.3d 452, 452",
"parenthetical": "performance review that occurred ten months before \"bad attitude\" termination decision was not enough to show pretext",
"sentence": "See Graefenhain v. Pabst Brewing Co., 827 F.2d 13, 15, 19 (7th Cir.1987) (extremely good review two months before firing relevant to showing pretext), overruled on other grounds; cf. Roberts, 172 F.3d at 452 (performance review that occurred ten months before “bad attitude” termination decision was not enough to show pretext)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "827 F.2d 13, 15, 19",
"parenthetical": "extremely good review two months before firing relevant to showing pretext",
"sentence": "See Graefenhain v. Pabst Brewing Co., 827 F.2d 13, 15, 19 (7th Cir.1987) (extremely good review two months before firing relevant to showing pretext), overruled on other grounds; cf. Roberts, 172 F.3d at 452 (performance review that occurred ten months before “bad attitude” termination decision was not enough to show pretext)."
} | 9,098,705 | b |
The amended VRPA no longer allows an individual to sue for statutory damages, and expands, to a significant degree, the circumstances in which a seller can disclose consumer information. The new law also imposes additional requirements on a seller regarding the notice it must give to customers whose data the seller intends to disclose for marketing purposes. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "511 U.S. 283, 283-84",
"parenthetical": "\"The extent of a party's liability, in the civil context as well as the criminal, is an important legal consequence that cannot be ignored.\" (emphasis in original",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Frank W. Lynch & Co., 624 N.W.2d at 183 (finding that an amendment which permits the recovery of a penalty in addition to damages for an employment dispute is not remedial because retroactive application would “change significantly the substance of the parties’ agreement and unsettle their expectations”); Dale Baker Oldsmobile, Inc. v. Fiat Motors of N. Am., Inc., 794 F.3d 213, 219 (6th Cir.1986) (explaining that remedial statutes are those that only “involve procedural rights'or indicate the procedures for effecting a remedy”); see also Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 283-84, 114 S.Ct. 1483 (“The extent of a party’s liability, in the civil context as well as the criminal, is an important legal consequence that cannot be ignored.” (emphasis in original)). Accordingly, the amendment to the VRPA does not apply to Plaintiffs’ claims, and the Court will assess the sufficiency of those claims under the law as it was when Plaintiffs’ claims accrued."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "624 N.W.2d 183, 183",
"parenthetical": "finding that an amendment which permits the recovery of a penalty in addition to damages for an employment dispute is not remedial because retroactive application would \"change significantly the substance of the parties' agreement and unsettle their expectations\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Frank W. Lynch & Co., 624 N.W.2d at 183 (finding that an amendment which permits the recovery of a penalty in addition to damages for an employment dispute is not remedial because retroactive application would “change significantly the substance of the parties’ agreement and unsettle their expectations”); Dale Baker Oldsmobile, Inc. v. Fiat Motors of N. Am., Inc., 794 F.3d 213, 219 (6th Cir.1986) (explaining that remedial statutes are those that only “involve procedural rights'or indicate the procedures for effecting a remedy”); see also Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 283-84, 114 S.Ct. 1483 (“The extent of a party’s liability, in the civil context as well as the criminal, is an important legal consequence that cannot be ignored.” (emphasis in original)). Accordingly, the amendment to the VRPA does not apply to Plaintiffs’ claims, and the Court will assess the sufficiency of those claims under the law as it was when Plaintiffs’ claims accrued."
} | 12,126,719 | b |
The amended VRPA no longer allows an individual to sue for statutory damages, and expands, to a significant degree, the circumstances in which a seller can disclose consumer information. The new law also imposes additional requirements on a seller regarding the notice it must give to customers whose data the seller intends to disclose for marketing purposes. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "624 N.W.2d 183, 183",
"parenthetical": "finding that an amendment which permits the recovery of a penalty in addition to damages for an employment dispute is not remedial because retroactive application would \"change significantly the substance of the parties' agreement and unsettle their expectations\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Frank W. Lynch & Co., 624 N.W.2d at 183 (finding that an amendment which permits the recovery of a penalty in addition to damages for an employment dispute is not remedial because retroactive application would “change significantly the substance of the parties’ agreement and unsettle their expectations”); Dale Baker Oldsmobile, Inc. v. Fiat Motors of N. Am., Inc., 794 F.3d 213, 219 (6th Cir.1986) (explaining that remedial statutes are those that only “involve procedural rights'or indicate the procedures for effecting a remedy”); see also Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 283-84, 114 S.Ct. 1483 (“The extent of a party’s liability, in the civil context as well as the criminal, is an important legal consequence that cannot be ignored.” (emphasis in original)). Accordingly, the amendment to the VRPA does not apply to Plaintiffs’ claims, and the Court will assess the sufficiency of those claims under the law as it was when Plaintiffs’ claims accrued."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"The extent of a party's liability, in the civil context as well as the criminal, is an important legal consequence that cannot be ignored.\" (emphasis in original",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Frank W. Lynch & Co., 624 N.W.2d at 183 (finding that an amendment which permits the recovery of a penalty in addition to damages for an employment dispute is not remedial because retroactive application would “change significantly the substance of the parties’ agreement and unsettle their expectations”); Dale Baker Oldsmobile, Inc. v. Fiat Motors of N. Am., Inc., 794 F.3d 213, 219 (6th Cir.1986) (explaining that remedial statutes are those that only “involve procedural rights'or indicate the procedures for effecting a remedy”); see also Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 283-84, 114 S.Ct. 1483 (“The extent of a party’s liability, in the civil context as well as the criminal, is an important legal consequence that cannot be ignored.” (emphasis in original)). Accordingly, the amendment to the VRPA does not apply to Plaintiffs’ claims, and the Court will assess the sufficiency of those claims under the law as it was when Plaintiffs’ claims accrued."
} | 12,126,719 | a |
The amended VRPA no longer allows an individual to sue for statutory damages, and expands, to a significant degree, the circumstances in which a seller can disclose consumer information. The new law also imposes additional requirements on a seller regarding the notice it must give to customers whose data the seller intends to disclose for marketing purposes. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "794 F.3d 213, 219",
"parenthetical": "explaining that remedial statutes are those that only \"involve procedural rights'or indicate the procedures for effecting a remedy\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Frank W. Lynch & Co., 624 N.W.2d at 183 (finding that an amendment which permits the recovery of a penalty in addition to damages for an employment dispute is not remedial because retroactive application would “change significantly the substance of the parties’ agreement and unsettle their expectations”); Dale Baker Oldsmobile, Inc. v. Fiat Motors of N. Am., Inc., 794 F.3d 213, 219 (6th Cir.1986) (explaining that remedial statutes are those that only “involve procedural rights'or indicate the procedures for effecting a remedy”); see also Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 283-84, 114 S.Ct. 1483 (“The extent of a party’s liability, in the civil context as well as the criminal, is an important legal consequence that cannot be ignored.” (emphasis in original)). Accordingly, the amendment to the VRPA does not apply to Plaintiffs’ claims, and the Court will assess the sufficiency of those claims under the law as it was when Plaintiffs’ claims accrued."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "511 U.S. 283, 283-84",
"parenthetical": "\"The extent of a party's liability, in the civil context as well as the criminal, is an important legal consequence that cannot be ignored.\" (emphasis in original",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Frank W. Lynch & Co., 624 N.W.2d at 183 (finding that an amendment which permits the recovery of a penalty in addition to damages for an employment dispute is not remedial because retroactive application would “change significantly the substance of the parties’ agreement and unsettle their expectations”); Dale Baker Oldsmobile, Inc. v. Fiat Motors of N. Am., Inc., 794 F.3d 213, 219 (6th Cir.1986) (explaining that remedial statutes are those that only “involve procedural rights'or indicate the procedures for effecting a remedy”); see also Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 283-84, 114 S.Ct. 1483 (“The extent of a party’s liability, in the civil context as well as the criminal, is an important legal consequence that cannot be ignored.” (emphasis in original)). Accordingly, the amendment to the VRPA does not apply to Plaintiffs’ claims, and the Court will assess the sufficiency of those claims under the law as it was when Plaintiffs’ claims accrued."
} | 12,126,719 | a |
The amended VRPA no longer allows an individual to sue for statutory damages, and expands, to a significant degree, the circumstances in which a seller can disclose consumer information. The new law also imposes additional requirements on a seller regarding the notice it must give to customers whose data the seller intends to disclose for marketing purposes. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"The extent of a party's liability, in the civil context as well as the criminal, is an important legal consequence that cannot be ignored.\" (emphasis in original",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Frank W. Lynch & Co., 624 N.W.2d at 183 (finding that an amendment which permits the recovery of a penalty in addition to damages for an employment dispute is not remedial because retroactive application would “change significantly the substance of the parties’ agreement and unsettle their expectations”); Dale Baker Oldsmobile, Inc. v. Fiat Motors of N. Am., Inc., 794 F.3d 213, 219 (6th Cir.1986) (explaining that remedial statutes are those that only “involve procedural rights'or indicate the procedures for effecting a remedy”); see also Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 283-84, 114 S.Ct. 1483 (“The extent of a party’s liability, in the civil context as well as the criminal, is an important legal consequence that cannot be ignored.” (emphasis in original)). Accordingly, the amendment to the VRPA does not apply to Plaintiffs’ claims, and the Court will assess the sufficiency of those claims under the law as it was when Plaintiffs’ claims accrued."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "794 F.3d 213, 219",
"parenthetical": "explaining that remedial statutes are those that only \"involve procedural rights'or indicate the procedures for effecting a remedy\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Frank W. Lynch & Co., 624 N.W.2d at 183 (finding that an amendment which permits the recovery of a penalty in addition to damages for an employment dispute is not remedial because retroactive application would “change significantly the substance of the parties’ agreement and unsettle their expectations”); Dale Baker Oldsmobile, Inc. v. Fiat Motors of N. Am., Inc., 794 F.3d 213, 219 (6th Cir.1986) (explaining that remedial statutes are those that only “involve procedural rights'or indicate the procedures for effecting a remedy”); see also Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 283-84, 114 S.Ct. 1483 (“The extent of a party’s liability, in the civil context as well as the criminal, is an important legal consequence that cannot be ignored.” (emphasis in original)). Accordingly, the amendment to the VRPA does not apply to Plaintiffs’ claims, and the Court will assess the sufficiency of those claims under the law as it was when Plaintiffs’ claims accrued."
} | 12,126,719 | b |
Because the Eleventh Circuit has not decided the issue, the Undersigned's task is to predict how the Eleventh Circuit would rule if presented with the identical issue of successor liability. Chao v. Concrete Mgt. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "355 F.Supp.2d 1317, 1328",
"parenthetical": "concluding that the Eleventh Circuit would \"likely follow\" a line of authority",
"sentence": "Cf. United States v. Stickle, 355 F.Supp.2d 1317, 1328 (S.D.Fla.2004) (concluding that the Eleventh Circuit would \"likely follow” a line of authority)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "2009 WL 564381, at *3",
"parenthetical": "predicting that the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals would conclude that successor liability exists under the FLSA",
"sentence": "Res., L.L.C., No. 08-2501-JWL, 2009 WL 564381, at *3 (D.Kan. Mar. 5, 2009) (predicting that the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals would conclude that successor liability exists under the FLSA)."
} | 4,059,586 | b |
The district court declined to investigate the purported statement any further because it incorrectly determined that any such testimony would be barred under Rule 606(b). Given the risk that the jury's discussion of a prior conviction may prejudice the defendant in a case where fraudulent intent is a key ingredient, we believe it is appropriate to remand to the district court to hold an evidentiary hearing. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "665 F.2d 877, 885",
"parenthetical": "noting that where trial court learns of possible juror misconduct, it must hold evidentiary hearing to determine precise nature of extraneous information",
"sentence": "See United States v. Bag nariol, 665 F.2d 877, 885 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 962, 102 S.Ct. 2040, 72 L.Ed.2d 487 (1982) (noting that where trial court learns of possible juror misconduct, it must hold evidentiary hearing to determine precise nature of extraneous information); United States v. Rhodes, 556 F.2d 599, 602 (1st Cir.1977) (stating that denial of motion for new trial without any investigation of exposure to extraneous materials was insufficient response to serious matters raised in affidavit); cf. United States v. Cheyenne, 855 F.2d 566, 568 (8th Cir.1988) (stating district court properly conducted extensive hearing to determine effect of extraneous material on jury deliberations); see also, 3 Weinstein’s Evidence, ¶606[05], at 606-52 (when sufficient showing is made of type of misconduct which is not on its face barred by Rule 606(b), further inquiry is warranted)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "855 F.2d 566, 568",
"parenthetical": "stating district court properly conducted extensive hearing to determine effect of extraneous material on jury deliberations",
"sentence": "See United States v. Bag nariol, 665 F.2d 877, 885 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 962, 102 S.Ct. 2040, 72 L.Ed.2d 487 (1982) (noting that where trial court learns of possible juror misconduct, it must hold evidentiary hearing to determine precise nature of extraneous information); United States v. Rhodes, 556 F.2d 599, 602 (1st Cir.1977) (stating that denial of motion for new trial without any investigation of exposure to extraneous materials was insufficient response to serious matters raised in affidavit); cf. United States v. Cheyenne, 855 F.2d 566, 568 (8th Cir.1988) (stating district court properly conducted extensive hearing to determine effect of extraneous material on jury deliberations); see also, 3 Weinstein’s Evidence, ¶606[05], at 606-52 (when sufficient showing is made of type of misconduct which is not on its face barred by Rule 606(b), further inquiry is warranted)."
} | 754 | a |
The district court declined to investigate the purported statement any further because it incorrectly determined that any such testimony would be barred under Rule 606(b). Given the risk that the jury's discussion of a prior conviction may prejudice the defendant in a case where fraudulent intent is a key ingredient, we believe it is appropriate to remand to the district court to hold an evidentiary hearing. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that where trial court learns of possible juror misconduct, it must hold evidentiary hearing to determine precise nature of extraneous information",
"sentence": "See United States v. Bag nariol, 665 F.2d 877, 885 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 962, 102 S.Ct. 2040, 72 L.Ed.2d 487 (1982) (noting that where trial court learns of possible juror misconduct, it must hold evidentiary hearing to determine precise nature of extraneous information); United States v. Rhodes, 556 F.2d 599, 602 (1st Cir.1977) (stating that denial of motion for new trial without any investigation of exposure to extraneous materials was insufficient response to serious matters raised in affidavit); cf. United States v. Cheyenne, 855 F.2d 566, 568 (8th Cir.1988) (stating district court properly conducted extensive hearing to determine effect of extraneous material on jury deliberations); see also, 3 Weinstein’s Evidence, ¶606[05], at 606-52 (when sufficient showing is made of type of misconduct which is not on its face barred by Rule 606(b), further inquiry is warranted)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "855 F.2d 566, 568",
"parenthetical": "stating district court properly conducted extensive hearing to determine effect of extraneous material on jury deliberations",
"sentence": "See United States v. Bag nariol, 665 F.2d 877, 885 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 962, 102 S.Ct. 2040, 72 L.Ed.2d 487 (1982) (noting that where trial court learns of possible juror misconduct, it must hold evidentiary hearing to determine precise nature of extraneous information); United States v. Rhodes, 556 F.2d 599, 602 (1st Cir.1977) (stating that denial of motion for new trial without any investigation of exposure to extraneous materials was insufficient response to serious matters raised in affidavit); cf. United States v. Cheyenne, 855 F.2d 566, 568 (8th Cir.1988) (stating district court properly conducted extensive hearing to determine effect of extraneous material on jury deliberations); see also, 3 Weinstein’s Evidence, ¶606[05], at 606-52 (when sufficient showing is made of type of misconduct which is not on its face barred by Rule 606(b), further inquiry is warranted)."
} | 754 | a |
The district court declined to investigate the purported statement any further because it incorrectly determined that any such testimony would be barred under Rule 606(b). Given the risk that the jury's discussion of a prior conviction may prejudice the defendant in a case where fraudulent intent is a key ingredient, we believe it is appropriate to remand to the district court to hold an evidentiary hearing. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that where trial court learns of possible juror misconduct, it must hold evidentiary hearing to determine precise nature of extraneous information",
"sentence": "See United States v. Bag nariol, 665 F.2d 877, 885 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 962, 102 S.Ct. 2040, 72 L.Ed.2d 487 (1982) (noting that where trial court learns of possible juror misconduct, it must hold evidentiary hearing to determine precise nature of extraneous information); United States v. Rhodes, 556 F.2d 599, 602 (1st Cir.1977) (stating that denial of motion for new trial without any investigation of exposure to extraneous materials was insufficient response to serious matters raised in affidavit); cf. United States v. Cheyenne, 855 F.2d 566, 568 (8th Cir.1988) (stating district court properly conducted extensive hearing to determine effect of extraneous material on jury deliberations); see also, 3 Weinstein’s Evidence, ¶606[05], at 606-52 (when sufficient showing is made of type of misconduct which is not on its face barred by Rule 606(b), further inquiry is warranted)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "855 F.2d 566, 568",
"parenthetical": "stating district court properly conducted extensive hearing to determine effect of extraneous material on jury deliberations",
"sentence": "See United States v. Bag nariol, 665 F.2d 877, 885 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 962, 102 S.Ct. 2040, 72 L.Ed.2d 487 (1982) (noting that where trial court learns of possible juror misconduct, it must hold evidentiary hearing to determine precise nature of extraneous information); United States v. Rhodes, 556 F.2d 599, 602 (1st Cir.1977) (stating that denial of motion for new trial without any investigation of exposure to extraneous materials was insufficient response to serious matters raised in affidavit); cf. United States v. Cheyenne, 855 F.2d 566, 568 (8th Cir.1988) (stating district court properly conducted extensive hearing to determine effect of extraneous material on jury deliberations); see also, 3 Weinstein’s Evidence, ¶606[05], at 606-52 (when sufficient showing is made of type of misconduct which is not on its face barred by Rule 606(b), further inquiry is warranted)."
} | 754 | a |
The district court declined to investigate the purported statement any further because it incorrectly determined that any such testimony would be barred under Rule 606(b). Given the risk that the jury's discussion of a prior conviction may prejudice the defendant in a case where fraudulent intent is a key ingredient, we believe it is appropriate to remand to the district court to hold an evidentiary hearing. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "855 F.2d 566, 568",
"parenthetical": "stating district court properly conducted extensive hearing to determine effect of extraneous material on jury deliberations",
"sentence": "See United States v. Bag nariol, 665 F.2d 877, 885 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 962, 102 S.Ct. 2040, 72 L.Ed.2d 487 (1982) (noting that where trial court learns of possible juror misconduct, it must hold evidentiary hearing to determine precise nature of extraneous information); United States v. Rhodes, 556 F.2d 599, 602 (1st Cir.1977) (stating that denial of motion for new trial without any investigation of exposure to extraneous materials was insufficient response to serious matters raised in affidavit); cf. United States v. Cheyenne, 855 F.2d 566, 568 (8th Cir.1988) (stating district court properly conducted extensive hearing to determine effect of extraneous material on jury deliberations); see also, 3 Weinstein’s Evidence, ¶606[05], at 606-52 (when sufficient showing is made of type of misconduct which is not on its face barred by Rule 606(b), further inquiry is warranted)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that where trial court learns of possible juror misconduct, it must hold evidentiary hearing to determine precise nature of extraneous information",
"sentence": "See United States v. Bag nariol, 665 F.2d 877, 885 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 962, 102 S.Ct. 2040, 72 L.Ed.2d 487 (1982) (noting that where trial court learns of possible juror misconduct, it must hold evidentiary hearing to determine precise nature of extraneous information); United States v. Rhodes, 556 F.2d 599, 602 (1st Cir.1977) (stating that denial of motion for new trial without any investigation of exposure to extraneous materials was insufficient response to serious matters raised in affidavit); cf. United States v. Cheyenne, 855 F.2d 566, 568 (8th Cir.1988) (stating district court properly conducted extensive hearing to determine effect of extraneous material on jury deliberations); see also, 3 Weinstein’s Evidence, ¶606[05], at 606-52 (when sufficient showing is made of type of misconduct which is not on its face barred by Rule 606(b), further inquiry is warranted)."
} | 754 | b |
The district court declined to investigate the purported statement any further because it incorrectly determined that any such testimony would be barred under Rule 606(b). Given the risk that the jury's discussion of a prior conviction may prejudice the defendant in a case where fraudulent intent is a key ingredient, we believe it is appropriate to remand to the district court to hold an evidentiary hearing. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "556 F.2d 599, 602",
"parenthetical": "stating that denial of motion for new trial without any investigation of exposure to extraneous materials was insufficient response to serious matters raised in affidavit",
"sentence": "See United States v. Bag nariol, 665 F.2d 877, 885 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 962, 102 S.Ct. 2040, 72 L.Ed.2d 487 (1982) (noting that where trial court learns of possible juror misconduct, it must hold evidentiary hearing to determine precise nature of extraneous information); United States v. Rhodes, 556 F.2d 599, 602 (1st Cir.1977) (stating that denial of motion for new trial without any investigation of exposure to extraneous materials was insufficient response to serious matters raised in affidavit); cf. United States v. Cheyenne, 855 F.2d 566, 568 (8th Cir.1988) (stating district court properly conducted extensive hearing to determine effect of extraneous material on jury deliberations); see also, 3 Weinstein’s Evidence, ¶606[05], at 606-52 (when sufficient showing is made of type of misconduct which is not on its face barred by Rule 606(b), further inquiry is warranted)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "855 F.2d 566, 568",
"parenthetical": "stating district court properly conducted extensive hearing to determine effect of extraneous material on jury deliberations",
"sentence": "See United States v. Bag nariol, 665 F.2d 877, 885 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 962, 102 S.Ct. 2040, 72 L.Ed.2d 487 (1982) (noting that where trial court learns of possible juror misconduct, it must hold evidentiary hearing to determine precise nature of extraneous information); United States v. Rhodes, 556 F.2d 599, 602 (1st Cir.1977) (stating that denial of motion for new trial without any investigation of exposure to extraneous materials was insufficient response to serious matters raised in affidavit); cf. United States v. Cheyenne, 855 F.2d 566, 568 (8th Cir.1988) (stating district court properly conducted extensive hearing to determine effect of extraneous material on jury deliberations); see also, 3 Weinstein’s Evidence, ¶606[05], at 606-52 (when sufficient showing is made of type of misconduct which is not on its face barred by Rule 606(b), further inquiry is warranted)."
} | 754 | a |
Accordingly, with regard to the AAA, courts refuse to enforce "vague" or "amorphous" provisions, or to create additional requirements not mentioned in the statute but merely "consistent with [its] purpose." | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "715 F.Supp. 1401, 1401",
"parenthetical": "no enforceable right to placement in the most family-like setting or reasonable efforts to help child remain in home",
"sentence": "Aristotle P. v. Johnson, 721 F.Supp. 1002, 1012 (N.D.Ill.1989) (no right to placement in the most family-like setting, “reasonable efforts to reunify families,” or “meaningful sibling visitation”); see also B.H., 715 F.Supp. at 1401 (no enforceable right to placement in the most family-like setting or reasonable efforts to help child remain in home); but see Artist M. v. Johnson, 726 F.Supp. 690, 695 (N.D.Ill.1989) (implied private right of action with respect to “rea sonable” preventive and reunification services; “the use of the word ‘reasonable’ in a statutory provision does not render the requirement too vague or ambiguous to be enforced”)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "721 F.Supp. 1002, 1012",
"parenthetical": "no right to placement in the most family-like setting, \"reasonable efforts to reunify families,\" or \"meaningful sibling visitation\"",
"sentence": "Aristotle P. v. Johnson, 721 F.Supp. 1002, 1012 (N.D.Ill.1989) (no right to placement in the most family-like setting, “reasonable efforts to reunify families,” or “meaningful sibling visitation”); see also B.H., 715 F.Supp. at 1401 (no enforceable right to placement in the most family-like setting or reasonable efforts to help child remain in home); but see Artist M. v. Johnson, 726 F.Supp. 690, 695 (N.D.Ill.1989) (implied private right of action with respect to “rea sonable” preventive and reunification services; “the use of the word ‘reasonable’ in a statutory provision does not render the requirement too vague or ambiguous to be enforced”)."
} | 4,105,351 | b |
Finally, plaintiffs have not cited, and the Court has not found, any cases decided after Filarsky in which a prosecutor was denied absolute immunity based on his or her status as a private attorney. By contrast, several cases have extended immunity to private attorneys serving prosecutorial roles. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "108 F.3d 486, 503",
"parenthetical": "granting immunity to private attorney representing child welfare agency in dependency hearings",
"sentence": "See Redlich v. Leen, No. 16-CIV-20001, 2016 WL 3670575, at *5 (S.D. Fla. May 20, 2016) (private attorney entitled to absolute immunity in “hired role as a prosecutor on behalf of the City of Coral Gables in the traffic court proceeding”); Shimota v. Wegner, No. 15-1590, 2016 WL 1254240, at *14 (D. Minn. Mar. 29, 2016) (citing Filarsky and holding that private attorney entitled to absolute immunity for claims related to wrongful prosecution); Higdon v. Law Firm of Lautzenheiser Myers & Holdman, No. 1:06-CV-14TS, 2006 WL 897441, at *1 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 31, 2006) (private attorneys acting as city prosecutors entitled to absolute immunity); see also pre-Filarsky cases Ernst v. Child & Youth Servs. of Chester Cty., 108 F.3d 486, 503 (3d Cir. 1997) (granting immunity to private attorney representing child welfare agency in dependency hearings); SBT Holdings, LLC v. Town of Westminster, 541 F.Supp.2d 405, 414-15 (D. Mass.), rev’d on other grounds, 547 F.3d 28 (1st Cir. 2008) (rejecting claim that “contract law firm” and its attorney are not entitled to absolute immunity); Niebur v. Town of Cicero, 212 F.Supp.2d 790, 824 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (“Private attorneys may have prose-cutorial immunity in the proper circumstances.”); Hollowell v. Gravett, 703 F.Supp. 761, 764 (E.D. Ark. 1988) (absolute immunity for private attorney hired to prosecute administrative dismissal proceeding against officers of the sheriffs department)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "2016 WL 3670575, at *5",
"parenthetical": "private attorney entitled to absolute immunity in \"hired role as a prosecutor on behalf of the City of Coral Gables in the traffic court proceeding\"",
"sentence": "See Redlich v. Leen, No. 16-CIV-20001, 2016 WL 3670575, at *5 (S.D. Fla. May 20, 2016) (private attorney entitled to absolute immunity in “hired role as a prosecutor on behalf of the City of Coral Gables in the traffic court proceeding”); Shimota v. Wegner, No. 15-1590, 2016 WL 1254240, at *14 (D. Minn. Mar. 29, 2016) (citing Filarsky and holding that private attorney entitled to absolute immunity for claims related to wrongful prosecution); Higdon v. Law Firm of Lautzenheiser Myers & Holdman, No. 1:06-CV-14TS, 2006 WL 897441, at *1 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 31, 2006) (private attorneys acting as city prosecutors entitled to absolute immunity); see also pre-Filarsky cases Ernst v. Child & Youth Servs. of Chester Cty., 108 F.3d 486, 503 (3d Cir. 1997) (granting immunity to private attorney representing child welfare agency in dependency hearings); SBT Holdings, LLC v. Town of Westminster, 541 F.Supp.2d 405, 414-15 (D. Mass.), rev’d on other grounds, 547 F.3d 28 (1st Cir. 2008) (rejecting claim that “contract law firm” and its attorney are not entitled to absolute immunity); Niebur v. Town of Cicero, 212 F.Supp.2d 790, 824 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (“Private attorneys may have prose-cutorial immunity in the proper circumstances.”); Hollowell v. Gravett, 703 F.Supp. 761, 764 (E.D. Ark. 1988) (absolute immunity for private attorney hired to prosecute administrative dismissal proceeding against officers of the sheriffs department)."
} | 12,270,208 | b |
Finally, plaintiffs have not cited, and the Court has not found, any cases decided after Filarsky in which a prosecutor was denied absolute immunity based on his or her status as a private attorney. By contrast, several cases have extended immunity to private attorneys serving prosecutorial roles. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "541 F.Supp.2d 405, 414-15",
"parenthetical": "rejecting claim that \"contract law firm\" and its attorney are not entitled to absolute immunity",
"sentence": "See Redlich v. Leen, No. 16-CIV-20001, 2016 WL 3670575, at *5 (S.D. Fla. May 20, 2016) (private attorney entitled to absolute immunity in “hired role as a prosecutor on behalf of the City of Coral Gables in the traffic court proceeding”); Shimota v. Wegner, No. 15-1590, 2016 WL 1254240, at *14 (D. Minn. Mar. 29, 2016) (citing Filarsky and holding that private attorney entitled to absolute immunity for claims related to wrongful prosecution); Higdon v. Law Firm of Lautzenheiser Myers & Holdman, No. 1:06-CV-14TS, 2006 WL 897441, at *1 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 31, 2006) (private attorneys acting as city prosecutors entitled to absolute immunity); see also pre-Filarsky cases Ernst v. Child & Youth Servs. of Chester Cty., 108 F.3d 486, 503 (3d Cir. 1997) (granting immunity to private attorney representing child welfare agency in dependency hearings); SBT Holdings, LLC v. Town of Westminster, 541 F.Supp.2d 405, 414-15 (D. Mass.), rev’d on other grounds, 547 F.3d 28 (1st Cir. 2008) (rejecting claim that “contract law firm” and its attorney are not entitled to absolute immunity); Niebur v. Town of Cicero, 212 F.Supp.2d 790, 824 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (“Private attorneys may have prose-cutorial immunity in the proper circumstances.”); Hollowell v. Gravett, 703 F.Supp. 761, 764 (E.D. Ark. 1988) (absolute immunity for private attorney hired to prosecute administrative dismissal proceeding against officers of the sheriffs department)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "2016 WL 3670575, at *5",
"parenthetical": "private attorney entitled to absolute immunity in \"hired role as a prosecutor on behalf of the City of Coral Gables in the traffic court proceeding\"",
"sentence": "See Redlich v. Leen, No. 16-CIV-20001, 2016 WL 3670575, at *5 (S.D. Fla. May 20, 2016) (private attorney entitled to absolute immunity in “hired role as a prosecutor on behalf of the City of Coral Gables in the traffic court proceeding”); Shimota v. Wegner, No. 15-1590, 2016 WL 1254240, at *14 (D. Minn. Mar. 29, 2016) (citing Filarsky and holding that private attorney entitled to absolute immunity for claims related to wrongful prosecution); Higdon v. Law Firm of Lautzenheiser Myers & Holdman, No. 1:06-CV-14TS, 2006 WL 897441, at *1 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 31, 2006) (private attorneys acting as city prosecutors entitled to absolute immunity); see also pre-Filarsky cases Ernst v. Child & Youth Servs. of Chester Cty., 108 F.3d 486, 503 (3d Cir. 1997) (granting immunity to private attorney representing child welfare agency in dependency hearings); SBT Holdings, LLC v. Town of Westminster, 541 F.Supp.2d 405, 414-15 (D. Mass.), rev’d on other grounds, 547 F.3d 28 (1st Cir. 2008) (rejecting claim that “contract law firm” and its attorney are not entitled to absolute immunity); Niebur v. Town of Cicero, 212 F.Supp.2d 790, 824 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (“Private attorneys may have prose-cutorial immunity in the proper circumstances.”); Hollowell v. Gravett, 703 F.Supp. 761, 764 (E.D. Ark. 1988) (absolute immunity for private attorney hired to prosecute administrative dismissal proceeding against officers of the sheriffs department)."
} | 12,270,208 | b |
Finally, plaintiffs have not cited, and the Court has not found, any cases decided after Filarsky in which a prosecutor was denied absolute immunity based on his or her status as a private attorney. By contrast, several cases have extended immunity to private attorneys serving prosecutorial roles. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "rejecting claim that \"contract law firm\" and its attorney are not entitled to absolute immunity",
"sentence": "See Redlich v. Leen, No. 16-CIV-20001, 2016 WL 3670575, at *5 (S.D. Fla. May 20, 2016) (private attorney entitled to absolute immunity in “hired role as a prosecutor on behalf of the City of Coral Gables in the traffic court proceeding”); Shimota v. Wegner, No. 15-1590, 2016 WL 1254240, at *14 (D. Minn. Mar. 29, 2016) (citing Filarsky and holding that private attorney entitled to absolute immunity for claims related to wrongful prosecution); Higdon v. Law Firm of Lautzenheiser Myers & Holdman, No. 1:06-CV-14TS, 2006 WL 897441, at *1 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 31, 2006) (private attorneys acting as city prosecutors entitled to absolute immunity); see also pre-Filarsky cases Ernst v. Child & Youth Servs. of Chester Cty., 108 F.3d 486, 503 (3d Cir. 1997) (granting immunity to private attorney representing child welfare agency in dependency hearings); SBT Holdings, LLC v. Town of Westminster, 541 F.Supp.2d 405, 414-15 (D. Mass.), rev’d on other grounds, 547 F.3d 28 (1st Cir. 2008) (rejecting claim that “contract law firm” and its attorney are not entitled to absolute immunity); Niebur v. Town of Cicero, 212 F.Supp.2d 790, 824 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (“Private attorneys may have prose-cutorial immunity in the proper circumstances.”); Hollowell v. Gravett, 703 F.Supp. 761, 764 (E.D. Ark. 1988) (absolute immunity for private attorney hired to prosecute administrative dismissal proceeding against officers of the sheriffs department)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "2016 WL 3670575, at *5",
"parenthetical": "private attorney entitled to absolute immunity in \"hired role as a prosecutor on behalf of the City of Coral Gables in the traffic court proceeding\"",
"sentence": "See Redlich v. Leen, No. 16-CIV-20001, 2016 WL 3670575, at *5 (S.D. Fla. May 20, 2016) (private attorney entitled to absolute immunity in “hired role as a prosecutor on behalf of the City of Coral Gables in the traffic court proceeding”); Shimota v. Wegner, No. 15-1590, 2016 WL 1254240, at *14 (D. Minn. Mar. 29, 2016) (citing Filarsky and holding that private attorney entitled to absolute immunity for claims related to wrongful prosecution); Higdon v. Law Firm of Lautzenheiser Myers & Holdman, No. 1:06-CV-14TS, 2006 WL 897441, at *1 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 31, 2006) (private attorneys acting as city prosecutors entitled to absolute immunity); see also pre-Filarsky cases Ernst v. Child & Youth Servs. of Chester Cty., 108 F.3d 486, 503 (3d Cir. 1997) (granting immunity to private attorney representing child welfare agency in dependency hearings); SBT Holdings, LLC v. Town of Westminster, 541 F.Supp.2d 405, 414-15 (D. Mass.), rev’d on other grounds, 547 F.3d 28 (1st Cir. 2008) (rejecting claim that “contract law firm” and its attorney are not entitled to absolute immunity); Niebur v. Town of Cicero, 212 F.Supp.2d 790, 824 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (“Private attorneys may have prose-cutorial immunity in the proper circumstances.”); Hollowell v. Gravett, 703 F.Supp. 761, 764 (E.D. Ark. 1988) (absolute immunity for private attorney hired to prosecute administrative dismissal proceeding against officers of the sheriffs department)."
} | 12,270,208 | b |
Finally, plaintiffs have not cited, and the Court has not found, any cases decided after Filarsky in which a prosecutor was denied absolute immunity based on his or her status as a private attorney. By contrast, several cases have extended immunity to private attorneys serving prosecutorial roles. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "2016 WL 3670575, at *5",
"parenthetical": "private attorney entitled to absolute immunity in \"hired role as a prosecutor on behalf of the City of Coral Gables in the traffic court proceeding\"",
"sentence": "See Redlich v. Leen, No. 16-CIV-20001, 2016 WL 3670575, at *5 (S.D. Fla. May 20, 2016) (private attorney entitled to absolute immunity in “hired role as a prosecutor on behalf of the City of Coral Gables in the traffic court proceeding”); Shimota v. Wegner, No. 15-1590, 2016 WL 1254240, at *14 (D. Minn. Mar. 29, 2016) (citing Filarsky and holding that private attorney entitled to absolute immunity for claims related to wrongful prosecution); Higdon v. Law Firm of Lautzenheiser Myers & Holdman, No. 1:06-CV-14TS, 2006 WL 897441, at *1 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 31, 2006) (private attorneys acting as city prosecutors entitled to absolute immunity); see also pre-Filarsky cases Ernst v. Child & Youth Servs. of Chester Cty., 108 F.3d 486, 503 (3d Cir. 1997) (granting immunity to private attorney representing child welfare agency in dependency hearings); SBT Holdings, LLC v. Town of Westminster, 541 F.Supp.2d 405, 414-15 (D. Mass.), rev’d on other grounds, 547 F.3d 28 (1st Cir. 2008) (rejecting claim that “contract law firm” and its attorney are not entitled to absolute immunity); Niebur v. Town of Cicero, 212 F.Supp.2d 790, 824 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (“Private attorneys may have prose-cutorial immunity in the proper circumstances.”); Hollowell v. Gravett, 703 F.Supp. 761, 764 (E.D. Ark. 1988) (absolute immunity for private attorney hired to prosecute administrative dismissal proceeding against officers of the sheriffs department)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "212 F.Supp.2d 790, 824",
"parenthetical": "\"Private attorneys may have prose-cutorial immunity in the proper circumstances.\"",
"sentence": "See Redlich v. Leen, No. 16-CIV-20001, 2016 WL 3670575, at *5 (S.D. Fla. May 20, 2016) (private attorney entitled to absolute immunity in “hired role as a prosecutor on behalf of the City of Coral Gables in the traffic court proceeding”); Shimota v. Wegner, No. 15-1590, 2016 WL 1254240, at *14 (D. Minn. Mar. 29, 2016) (citing Filarsky and holding that private attorney entitled to absolute immunity for claims related to wrongful prosecution); Higdon v. Law Firm of Lautzenheiser Myers & Holdman, No. 1:06-CV-14TS, 2006 WL 897441, at *1 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 31, 2006) (private attorneys acting as city prosecutors entitled to absolute immunity); see also pre-Filarsky cases Ernst v. Child & Youth Servs. of Chester Cty., 108 F.3d 486, 503 (3d Cir. 1997) (granting immunity to private attorney representing child welfare agency in dependency hearings); SBT Holdings, LLC v. Town of Westminster, 541 F.Supp.2d 405, 414-15 (D. Mass.), rev’d on other grounds, 547 F.3d 28 (1st Cir. 2008) (rejecting claim that “contract law firm” and its attorney are not entitled to absolute immunity); Niebur v. Town of Cicero, 212 F.Supp.2d 790, 824 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (“Private attorneys may have prose-cutorial immunity in the proper circumstances.”); Hollowell v. Gravett, 703 F.Supp. 761, 764 (E.D. Ark. 1988) (absolute immunity for private attorney hired to prosecute administrative dismissal proceeding against officers of the sheriffs department)."
} | 12,270,208 | a |
Finally, plaintiffs have not cited, and the Court has not found, any cases decided after Filarsky in which a prosecutor was denied absolute immunity based on his or her status as a private attorney. By contrast, several cases have extended immunity to private attorneys serving prosecutorial roles. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "703 F.Supp. 761, 764",
"parenthetical": "absolute immunity for private attorney hired to prosecute administrative dismissal proceeding against officers of the sheriffs department",
"sentence": "See Redlich v. Leen, No. 16-CIV-20001, 2016 WL 3670575, at *5 (S.D. Fla. May 20, 2016) (private attorney entitled to absolute immunity in “hired role as a prosecutor on behalf of the City of Coral Gables in the traffic court proceeding”); Shimota v. Wegner, No. 15-1590, 2016 WL 1254240, at *14 (D. Minn. Mar. 29, 2016) (citing Filarsky and holding that private attorney entitled to absolute immunity for claims related to wrongful prosecution); Higdon v. Law Firm of Lautzenheiser Myers & Holdman, No. 1:06-CV-14TS, 2006 WL 897441, at *1 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 31, 2006) (private attorneys acting as city prosecutors entitled to absolute immunity); see also pre-Filarsky cases Ernst v. Child & Youth Servs. of Chester Cty., 108 F.3d 486, 503 (3d Cir. 1997) (granting immunity to private attorney representing child welfare agency in dependency hearings); SBT Holdings, LLC v. Town of Westminster, 541 F.Supp.2d 405, 414-15 (D. Mass.), rev’d on other grounds, 547 F.3d 28 (1st Cir. 2008) (rejecting claim that “contract law firm” and its attorney are not entitled to absolute immunity); Niebur v. Town of Cicero, 212 F.Supp.2d 790, 824 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (“Private attorneys may have prose-cutorial immunity in the proper circumstances.”); Hollowell v. Gravett, 703 F.Supp. 761, 764 (E.D. Ark. 1988) (absolute immunity for private attorney hired to prosecute administrative dismissal proceeding against officers of the sheriffs department)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "2016 WL 3670575, at *5",
"parenthetical": "private attorney entitled to absolute immunity in \"hired role as a prosecutor on behalf of the City of Coral Gables in the traffic court proceeding\"",
"sentence": "See Redlich v. Leen, No. 16-CIV-20001, 2016 WL 3670575, at *5 (S.D. Fla. May 20, 2016) (private attorney entitled to absolute immunity in “hired role as a prosecutor on behalf of the City of Coral Gables in the traffic court proceeding”); Shimota v. Wegner, No. 15-1590, 2016 WL 1254240, at *14 (D. Minn. Mar. 29, 2016) (citing Filarsky and holding that private attorney entitled to absolute immunity for claims related to wrongful prosecution); Higdon v. Law Firm of Lautzenheiser Myers & Holdman, No. 1:06-CV-14TS, 2006 WL 897441, at *1 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 31, 2006) (private attorneys acting as city prosecutors entitled to absolute immunity); see also pre-Filarsky cases Ernst v. Child & Youth Servs. of Chester Cty., 108 F.3d 486, 503 (3d Cir. 1997) (granting immunity to private attorney representing child welfare agency in dependency hearings); SBT Holdings, LLC v. Town of Westminster, 541 F.Supp.2d 405, 414-15 (D. Mass.), rev’d on other grounds, 547 F.3d 28 (1st Cir. 2008) (rejecting claim that “contract law firm” and its attorney are not entitled to absolute immunity); Niebur v. Town of Cicero, 212 F.Supp.2d 790, 824 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (“Private attorneys may have prose-cutorial immunity in the proper circumstances.”); Hollowell v. Gravett, 703 F.Supp. 761, 764 (E.D. Ark. 1988) (absolute immunity for private attorney hired to prosecute administrative dismissal proceeding against officers of the sheriffs department)."
} | 12,270,208 | b |
Finally, plaintiffs have not cited, and the Court has not found, any cases decided after Filarsky in which a prosecutor was denied absolute immunity based on his or her status as a private attorney. By contrast, several cases have extended immunity to private attorneys serving prosecutorial roles. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "108 F.3d 486, 503",
"parenthetical": "granting immunity to private attorney representing child welfare agency in dependency hearings",
"sentence": "See Redlich v. Leen, No. 16-CIV-20001, 2016 WL 3670575, at *5 (S.D. Fla. May 20, 2016) (private attorney entitled to absolute immunity in “hired role as a prosecutor on behalf of the City of Coral Gables in the traffic court proceeding”); Shimota v. Wegner, No. 15-1590, 2016 WL 1254240, at *14 (D. Minn. Mar. 29, 2016) (citing Filarsky and holding that private attorney entitled to absolute immunity for claims related to wrongful prosecution); Higdon v. Law Firm of Lautzenheiser Myers & Holdman, No. 1:06-CV-14TS, 2006 WL 897441, at *1 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 31, 2006) (private attorneys acting as city prosecutors entitled to absolute immunity); see also pre-Filarsky cases Ernst v. Child & Youth Servs. of Chester Cty., 108 F.3d 486, 503 (3d Cir. 1997) (granting immunity to private attorney representing child welfare agency in dependency hearings); SBT Holdings, LLC v. Town of Westminster, 541 F.Supp.2d 405, 414-15 (D. Mass.), rev’d on other grounds, 547 F.3d 28 (1st Cir. 2008) (rejecting claim that “contract law firm” and its attorney are not entitled to absolute immunity); Niebur v. Town of Cicero, 212 F.Supp.2d 790, 824 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (“Private attorneys may have prose-cutorial immunity in the proper circumstances.”); Hollowell v. Gravett, 703 F.Supp. 761, 764 (E.D. Ark. 1988) (absolute immunity for private attorney hired to prosecute administrative dismissal proceeding against officers of the sheriffs department)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "2006 WL 897441, at *1",
"parenthetical": "private attorneys acting as city prosecutors entitled to absolute immunity",
"sentence": "See Redlich v. Leen, No. 16-CIV-20001, 2016 WL 3670575, at *5 (S.D. Fla. May 20, 2016) (private attorney entitled to absolute immunity in “hired role as a prosecutor on behalf of the City of Coral Gables in the traffic court proceeding”); Shimota v. Wegner, No. 15-1590, 2016 WL 1254240, at *14 (D. Minn. Mar. 29, 2016) (citing Filarsky and holding that private attorney entitled to absolute immunity for claims related to wrongful prosecution); Higdon v. Law Firm of Lautzenheiser Myers & Holdman, No. 1:06-CV-14TS, 2006 WL 897441, at *1 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 31, 2006) (private attorneys acting as city prosecutors entitled to absolute immunity); see also pre-Filarsky cases Ernst v. Child & Youth Servs. of Chester Cty., 108 F.3d 486, 503 (3d Cir. 1997) (granting immunity to private attorney representing child welfare agency in dependency hearings); SBT Holdings, LLC v. Town of Westminster, 541 F.Supp.2d 405, 414-15 (D. Mass.), rev’d on other grounds, 547 F.3d 28 (1st Cir. 2008) (rejecting claim that “contract law firm” and its attorney are not entitled to absolute immunity); Niebur v. Town of Cicero, 212 F.Supp.2d 790, 824 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (“Private attorneys may have prose-cutorial immunity in the proper circumstances.”); Hollowell v. Gravett, 703 F.Supp. 761, 764 (E.D. Ark. 1988) (absolute immunity for private attorney hired to prosecute administrative dismissal proceeding against officers of the sheriffs department)."
} | 12,270,208 | b |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.