Alsbrook v. City of Maumelle
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
Both decisions displaced Alsbrook's categorical immunity rule in those settings. The Eighth Circuit recognized the first change in Bill M. v. Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services; Doe v. Board of Trustees for the University of Arkansas recognized both. Randolph v. Rodgers distinguished Alsbrook because the remedies available to its plaintiff differed. All 66 flagged citations have been read; the three confirmed treatments are listed below.
66 later cases cite Alsbrook v. City of Maumelle; 66 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 Alsbrook v. City of Maumelle?
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.
Treatments
Abrogated in part
-
The Supreme Court's access-to-courts holding displaced Alsbrook's categorical rule that Title II did not validly abrogate state sovereign immunity for any claim.
Tennessee v. Lane · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
Because we find that Title II unquestionably is valid § 5 legislation as it applies to the class of cases implicating the accessibility of judicial services, we need go no further.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Supreme Court held that Title II validly removes state immunity for damages claims based on conduct that also violates the Fourteenth Amendment, contrary to Alsbrook's categorical rule.
United States v. Georgia · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
Thus, insofar as Title II creates a private cause of action for damages against the States for conduct that actually violates the Fourteenth Amendment, Title II validly abrogates state sovereign immunity.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Questioned
-
The Eighth Circuit said it was no longer confident that Alsbrook could resolve Title II damages claims after United States v. Georgia, but left the effect on Alsbrook undecided.
Klingler v. Director, Department of Revenue · Eighth Circuit · filed
The language in Georgia requiring a claim-by-claim determination of whether Congress validly abrogated state sovereign immunity appears inconsistent with the approach we took in Alsbrook, 184 F.3d at 1010, which declared that Title II as a whole was not a valid abrogation of sovereign immunity. ... Because of these developments, we are no longer confident that Alsbrook or Bill M. can serve as reliable bases for resolving the plaintiffs' claims for money damages. ... That said, we need not determine how the Court's decision in Georgia may affect the holdings in Alsbrook or Bill M. in order to decide this case.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Alsbrook v. City of Maumelle 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