Then, in June, PhrMA filed suit against CMS in federal district court for the District of Columbia alleging that (42 USC [section]1396r-8(d)) a state may place a drug on a restricted formulary only for clinical reasons, and not on the basis of price.
PhrMA sued the Florida Medicaid program in federal court alleging that the supplemental rebate program violates the Medicaid rebate law (42 USC [section]1396r-8(d)(4)(B)-(C)) because it excludes drugs based on price.
In cases alleging the unconstitutional use of deadly force by police officers, the policy issue will generally be raised in two different contexts.
When lawsuits are brought against police officers and their agencies under Title 42 U.S.C., Section 1983, alleging violations of federal constitutional rights, the cases suggest it is unlikely that violations of departmental policy will be considered relevant, although they may be deemed relevant in some negligence actions under state law.
She then sued the police and the prosecutor under 42 U.S.C 1983 alleging various constitutional violations.
The Supreme Court reversed, in part, the rulings of the lower courts and held that the prosecutor was entitled to only qualified immunity for providing legal advice to the police.(10) At the same time, the Court reaffirmed that prosecutors are absolutely immune from lawsuits alleging constitutional violations when they conduct a prosecutorial function that is intimately associated with a judicial phase of the criminal process.(11)
One of the reasons given in Burns for denying absolute immunity to prosecutors who give advice to police was the broad protection qualified immunity provides from lawsuits alleging constitutional violations.
A court uses three steps to determine qualified immunity and whether a lawsuit alleging a constitutional violation should be dismissed prior to trial.
If a prosecutor or law enforcement official engages in investigative or managerial activity in one of these unclear areas, and a civil suit alleging a constitutional violation results, the court will dismiss the case, because the right alleged to have been violated was not clearly established.
1983 alleging a fourth amendment violation by the detective.
After the criminal case was dropped, the plaintiff sued the agents under Bivens, alleging a constitutional violation.
A former employee sued a state corrections department under Title VII, and corrections officials under [section] 1983, alleging
she was subjected to retaliation for opposing discriminatory treatment of a Native American co-worker.