Source: http://newyorkcourtcorruption.blogspot.com/2010_06_01_archive.html
Timestamp: 2018-04-24 08:26:39
Document Index: 454921798

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1331', '§5', '§ 1291', '§1254', '§1331', '§ 1983', '§5', '§5', '§ 1983', '§ 1983']

COURTBEAT: NYCOURTS- NEW YORK AND U.S. COURT CORRUPTION: June 2010
Stephen Krane, Partner at Proskauer Rose, Dies
Stephen C. Krane, Proskauer Rose General Counsel, Dies
(pictured at left) appointed him co-chair of the New York Judicial Institute on Professionalism in the Law.
Allen I. Fagin, Proskauer's chairman, said in an interview that Mr. Krane was "a beloved individual, a remarkable human being and lawyer."
Mr. Krane is survived by his wife, Faith, and two children, Elizabeth and Cameron.
The family has not yet announced arrangements.
Posted by Betsy Combier at 2:14 PM 1 comment:
Amicus Curiae Filed In Anderson v First Department Disciplinary Committee
THOMAS J. CAHILL, SHERRY K. COHEN, and DAVID SPOKONY,
Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974) 8 -- Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 160 (1908) 8
Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U.S. 225,238-39 (1972) 9 -- U.S.C. 28 §1331 6
§5 of the Fourteenth Amendment 7, 8 -- Eleventh Amendment 7, 8
28 U.S.C. § 1291 6 -- 28 U.S.C. §1254(1) 6 -- 28 U.S.C. §1331 6 -- U.S.C. 42 § 1983 9
1. Eleventh Amendment Does Not Bar Suits for Declaratory or Injunctive Relief - The District Court’s bald assertion that in Amicus Curiae’s proceedings the Complaint lacked any foundation upon which the District Court can grant legal relief is clearly erroneous. The Eleventh Amendment does not preclude suit against State officers for the kind of injunctive and declaratory relief at issue here. If a State official acts in contravention of the Constitution, pursuant to an unconstitutional statute, or in a manner that violates an individual's constitutionally protected rights, suit to enjoin the offending behavior is proper and does not run afoul of a State's sovereign immunity. (See Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 160 (1908), Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974)). Additionally, Ex Parte Young and Edelman v. Jordan provide that the District Court could have provided retroactive monetary relief against an officer sued in his individual capacity, as bringing an action against an officer in his individual capacity does not implicate State sovereignty.
2. Explicit §5 Override - §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment grants Congress the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of that Amendment; courts have recognized that this new Amendment, again a consensus of the people, abrogates the immunity provided by the Eleventh Amendment. In Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 105 S.Ct. 3142, 87 L.Ed.2d 171 (1985), this Court said that Congress can use its Fourteenth Amendment power to override a State's Eleventh Amendment protection.
3. The District Court’s Order Cannot Claim Judicial and Qualified Immunity. - Furthermore, in their proceedings, the District Court cannot allow Amicus Curiae’s Respondents to use the guise of State authority as a license for violating Amicus-Curiae’s constitutional rights. Indeed, the entire purpose behind the enactment of U.S.C. 42 § 1983 was to secure the protection of individuals' constitutional rights against infringement by State governments and State actors who purportedly act under the authority of State law; Section 1983 creates a private cause of action for damages (as well as injunctive relief) against those "persons" responsible for the deprivation (See Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U.S. 225,238-39 (1972)).
In Kostok v. Thomas, 105 F.3d 65, 69 (2d Cir. 1997), the court determined that declaratory and prospective injunctive relief are available, and that the Plaintiff-Appellants' claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 need not be dismissed.
Posted by Betsy Combier at 11:00 PM 1 comment:
Amicus Curiae Filed In Anderson v First Department...