Legal Opinion

Nobile v. Massachusetts

District Court, D. Massachusetts

Decided December 22, 2009No. Civil Action 2008-11048-PBSPublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PROCEDURAL ORDER ON DEFENDANT NAPHCARE, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (# 77)

COLLINGS, United States Magistrate Judge.

In its Reply Memorandum, Etc., NaphCare argues that claims against it are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The Eleventh Amendment bars suits from being brought in federal courts for monetary damages against states, unless the state waives its immunity or consents to being sued. Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 169, 105 S.Ct. 3099, 87 L.Ed.2d 114 (1985); Culebras Enterprises Corp. v. Rivera Rios, 813 F.2d 506, 516 (1 Cir., 1987). The Supreme Court has extended this…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Kentucky v. GrahamSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  2. Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. HaldermanSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  3. Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. DoyleSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  4. Blum v. YaretskySupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  5. Richardson v. McKnightSupreme Court of the United States · 1997

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Lucero v. EvangelidisDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2018
  2. Davis v. DookhanDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2022
  3. Lucero v. TurcoDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2018
  4. Lucero v. TurcoDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2018

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API