31 Cited authorities

Burt v. Titlow
571 U.S. 12 (2013) Cited 3,755 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Court's decision declining to set aside state court finding that a lawyer was not ineffective did not exonerate the lawyer from the fact that he “may well have violated the rules of professional conduct”
Sprint Commc'ns, Inc. v. Jacobs
571 U.S. 69 (2013) Cited 1,619 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that "these three 'exceptional' categories . . . define Younger's scope"
Calder v. Jones
465 U.S. 783 (1984) Cited 4,614 times 23 Legal Analyses
Holding a California court had personal jurisdiction over individual defendants when the defendants had not visited the state in connection with an allegedly defamatory article and "[we]re not responsible for the circulation of the article in California"
Williamson Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank
473 U.S. 172 (1985) Cited 2,711 times 46 Legal Analyses
Holding that “if a State provides an adequate procedure for seeking just compensation, the property owner cannot claim a violation of the Just Compensation Clause [of the United States Constitution] until it has used the procedure and been denied just compensation”
Patsy v. Florida Board of Regents
457 U.S. 496 (1982) Cited 1,712 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiffs suing under § 1983 are not required to have exhausted state administrative remedies
Mich. v. Bay Mills Indian Cmty.
572 U.S. 782 (2014) Cited 446 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding that tribal immunity extends to "suits arising from a tribe’s commercial activities, even when they take place off Indian lands"
Ohio Civil Rights Comm'n v. Dayton Schools
477 U.S. 619 (1986) Cited 915 times
Holding there was no waiver or consent because the state had not requested the federal court to adjudicate the merits
Trujillo v. Williams
465 F.3d 1210 (10th Cir. 2006) Cited 1,792 times
Holding that under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), district courts "may consider personal jurisdiction and venue sua sponte' . . . when the defense is obvious from the face of the complaint'" (quoting Fratus v. DeLand, 49 F.3d 673, 674-75 (10th Cir. 1995))
Leroy v. Great W. United Corp.
443 U.S. 173 (1979) Cited 962 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that while “[t]he question of personal jurisdiction, which goes to the court's power to exercise control over the parties, is typically decided in advance of venue, ... a court may reverse the normal order of considering personal jurisdiction and venue”
Dudnikov v. Chalk
514 F.3d 1063 (10th Cir. 2008) Cited 954 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that a Colorado court had personal jurisdiction over a defendant despite "the lack of defendants’ physical presence in Colorado" because they acted "with the ultimate purpose of cancelling plaintiffs’ auction in Colorado"
Section 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights
42 U.S.C. § 1983 Cited 486,292 times 688 Legal Analyses
Holding liable any state actor who "subjects, or causes [a person] to be subjected" to a constitutional violation
Section 4-183 - Appeal to Superior Court
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-183 Cited 245 times
Providing that the Superior Court may reverse decisions of the CHRO that are "[i]n violation of constitutional or statutory provisions"

Shotton v. Pitkin et al

31 Cited authorities

Holding that the Court's decision declining to set aside state court finding that a lawyer was not ineffective did not exonerate the lawyer from the fact that he “may well have violated the rules of professional conduct”

Holding that "these three 'exceptional' categories . . . define Younger's scope"

Holding a California court had personal jurisdiction over individual defendants when the defendants had not visited the state in connection with an allegedly defamatory article and "[we]re not responsible for the circulation of the article in California"

Holding that “if a State provides an adequate procedure for seeking just compensation, the property owner cannot claim a violation of the Just Compensation Clause [of the United States Constitution] until it has used the procedure and been denied just compensation”

Holding that plaintiffs suing under § 1983 are not required to have exhausted state administrative remedies

Holding that tribal immunity extends to "suits arising from a tribe’s commercial activities, even when they take place off Indian lands"

Holding there was no waiver or consent because the state had not requested the federal court to adjudicate the merits

Holding that under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), district courts "may consider personal jurisdiction and venue sua sponte' . . . when the defense is obvious from the face of the complaint'" (quoting Fratus v. DeLand, 49 F.3d 673, 674-75 (10th Cir. 1995))

Holding that while “[t]he question of personal jurisdiction, which goes to the court's power to exercise control over the parties, is typically decided in advance of venue, ... a court may reverse the normal order of considering personal jurisdiction and venue”

Holding that a Colorado court had personal jurisdiction over a defendant despite "the lack of defendants’ physical presence in Colorado" because they acted "with the ultimate purpose of cancelling plaintiffs’ auction in Colorado"

Holding liable any state actor who "subjects, or causes [a person] to be subjected" to a constitutional violation

Providing that the Superior Court may reverse decisions of the CHRO that are "[i]n violation of constitutional or statutory provisions"