56 F. Supp. 2d 370 - Camacho v. Brandon’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently January 2013
2 federal appellate ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1367 · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205 Will County Illinois · Connick v. Myers · Broadrick v. Oklahoma
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The courts that have addressed such a request have noted that Article 78 is “a novel and special creation of state law” and “a purely state procedural remedy.” Article 78 provides a special proceeding for judicial review of action by “every court, tribunal, board, corporation, officer, or other person, or aggregation of persons.... ” N.Y.C.P.L.R. § 7802(a). “[I]t cannot be said that an Article 78 proceeding ... is a suit of a civil nature at common law or in equity.” Rather, Article 78 actions were “designed for the state courts, and are best suited to adjudication there.” Counsel for plaintiff, having served as counsel in both the Camacho and Luc-chese cases, is well aware that the federal courts are loath to exercise jurisdiction over Article 78 claims. Even where a plaintiff has one or more federal claims still alive — as did plaintiffs Camacho and Lucchese, and as does Birmingham — the interests of judicial economy are not served by embroiling this court in a dispute over local laws and state procedural requirements. Article 78 “is designed to facilitate a ‘summary disposition’ of the issues presented, [and] ... is ‘.a fast and cheap way to implement a right.’ ” I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs Article 78 claim, and remit him to state court to seek review of his termination through the special vehicle the state has provided for such review.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Verbeek v. Teller“interfered or potentially interfered with the fulfillment of his job responsibilities”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Camacho v. Brandon
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.