Case Citator › Linda Cone Selensky v. State of Alabama

Linda Cone Selensky v. State of Alabama

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Good law
Court
Eleventh Circuit
Citation
619 F. App'x 846
Decided
Confirmed treatments
0
Flagged citations read
44 of 44
Citing cases (total)
44
Good law
Every flagged citation to this case has been read, and none of them overrules, limits, or questions it. Linda Cone Selensky v. State of Alabama remains good law on Alabama's Eleventh Amendment immunity from private federal suits. All 44 flagged citations have been read, and none confirms adverse treatment of its holding that Alabama had not waived immunity and Congress had not abrogated it for claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
More on how this was screened

Source review: The citing opinions apply Selensky to claims against Alabama, its agencies, or state employees in their official capacities. Their references to abrogation concern sovereign immunity, and the lone reference to overruling concerns a different decision. The cited Eleventh Circuit opinion was designated unpublished.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

44 later cases cite Linda Cone Selensky v. State of Alabama; 44 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Linda Cone Selensky v. State of Alabama?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

No reviewed court has overruled or limited this case.

Every one of the 44 flagged citations was read, and each turned out to be something other than adverse treatment: a routine application, a party's argument the court rejected, or the case itself discussing older law. That reading is the finding this page exists to report.

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Linda Cone Selensky v. State of Alabama and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace