Difference between revisions of "Darlak v. Bobear"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(New page: In ''Darlak v. Bobear'', 814 F.2d 1055, 1061 (5th Cir. 1987), a physician who was suspended from a state hospital sued state officials under Section 1983, and requested that the hospit...) |
(Bold, links) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | In ''Darlak v. Bobear'', 814 F.2d 1055, 1061 (5th Cir. 1987), a physician who was suspended from a state hospital sued state officials under [[Section 1983]], and requested that the hospital rescind his suspension. The court held that plaintiff's claim was one for prospective injunctive relief, and was therefore not barred by the [[Eleventh Amendment]]. ''Id.'' at 1061. ''See also'' M. Schwartz & J. Kirklin, Section 1983 Litigation: Claims, Defenses and Fees -- 1989 Cumulative Supplement No. 1 § 6.5 (1989) (numerous cases cited, holding that reinstatement of public employees is prospective rather than retroactive relief). | + | In '''''Darlak v. Bobear''''', 814 F.2d 1055, 1061 (5th Cir. 1987), a [[physician]] who was suspended from a state [[hospital]] sued state officials under [[Section 1983]], and requested that the hospital rescind his suspension. The court held that [[plaintiff]]'s claim was one for prospective injunctive relief, and was therefore not barred by the [[Eleventh Amendment]]. ''Id.'' at 1061. ''See also'' M. Schwartz & J. Kirklin, Section 1983 Litigation: Claims, Defenses and Fees -- 1989 Cumulative Supplement No. 1 § 6.5 (1989) (numerous cases cited, holding that reinstatement of public employees is prospective rather than retroactive relief). |
| + | |||
[[category:Circuit Cases]] | [[category:Circuit Cases]] | ||
[[category:Section 1983]] | [[category:Section 1983]] | ||
[[category:Eleventh Amendment]] | [[category:Eleventh Amendment]] | ||
Revision as of 23:40, January 14, 2008
In Darlak v. Bobear, 814 F.2d 1055, 1061 (5th Cir. 1987), a physician who was suspended from a state hospital sued state officials under Section 1983, and requested that the hospital rescind his suspension. The court held that plaintiff's claim was one for prospective injunctive relief, and was therefore not barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Id. at 1061. See also M. Schwartz & J. Kirklin, Section 1983 Litigation: Claims, Defenses and Fees -- 1989 Cumulative Supplement No. 1 § 6.5 (1989) (numerous cases cited, holding that reinstatement of public employees is prospective rather than retroactive relief).