felder
casey
argued
march
decided
june
nine
months
allegedly
beaten
milwaukee
police
officers
arrested
disorderly
conduct
charge
later
dropped
petitioner
filed
action
city
certain
officers
alleging
beating
arrest
racially
motivated
violated
rights
fourth
fourteenth
amendments
federal
constitution
officers
respondents
moved
dismiss
suit
petitioner
failure
comply
wisconsin
statute
provides
inter
alia
suit
may
brought
state
state
local
governmental
entity
officer
plaintiff
within
days
alleged
injury
must
notify
defendant
circumstances
amount
claim
plaintiff
intent
hold
named
defendant
liable
defendant
days
grant
disallow
requested
relief
plaintiff
must
bring
suit
within
six
months
receiving
notice
disallowance
denied
motion
petitioner
claim
wisconsin
appeals
affirmed
wisconsin
reversed
holding
congress
may
establish
procedural
framework
claims
heard
federal
courts
retain
authority
constitution
prescribe
procedures
govern
actions
tribunals
including
actions
vindicate
congressionally
created
rights
held
wisconsin
statute
conflicts
purpose
effects
remedial
objectives
enforcement
actions
frequently
predictably
produce
different
outcomes
litigation
based
solely
whether
claim
asserted
state
federal
pursuant
supremacy
clause
action
brought
state
pp
unlike
lack
statutes
limitations
federal
civil
rights
laws
led
borrowing
limitations
periods
personal
injury
claims
absence
federal
provision
deficiency
requiring
importation
provision
federal
civil
rights
scheme
rules
neither
universally
familiar
sense
indispensable
prerequisites
litigation
thus
reason
suppose
congress
intended
federal
courts
apply
rules
significantly
inhibit
ability
bring
federal
actions
regard
federal
opposed
adoption
state
law
application
notice
requirement
burdens
exercise
federal
right
forcing
civil
rights
victims
seek
redress
state
courts
comply
requirement
absent
civil
rights
litigation
federal
courts
moreover
enforcement
statutes
actions
frequently
predictably
produce
different
outcomes
federal
civil
rights
litigation
based
solely
whether
litigation
takes
place
state
federal
pp
wisconsin
statute
undermines
unique
remedy
state
governmental
bodies
officials
conditioning
right
recovery
minimize
governmental
liability
state
statute
also
discriminates
federal
right
since
state
affords
victim
intentional
tort
two
years
recognize
compensable
nature
injury
civil
rights
victim
given
four
months
appreciate
deprived
federal
constitutional
statutory
right
moreover
notice
provision
operates
part
exhaustion
requirement
forcing
claimants
seek
satisfaction
first
instance
governmental
defendant
congress
never
intended
injured
governmental
wrongdoers
required
condition
recovery
submit
claims
government
responsible
injuries
pp
wisconsin
chosen
legislative
scheme
governing
citizens
rights
sue
state
subdivisions
expose
subdivisions
large
liability
defense
costs
made
concomitant
decision
impose
notice
conditions
assist
subdivisions
controlling
costs
decision
subject
state
subdivisions
liability
violations
federal
rights
however
choice
congress
made
decision
state
authority
override
state
courts
hear
entire
cause
action
plaintiff
complies
notice
statute
alter
fact
statute
discriminates
precise
type
claim
congress
created
pp
prompt
investigation
claims
inures
benefit
claimants
local
governments
notice
statutes
enacted
primarily
benefit
governmental
defendants
intended
afford
defendants
opportunity
prepare
stronger
case
sound
notions
public
administration
may
support
prompt
notice
requirement
policies
necessarily
clash
remedial
purposes
federal
civil
rights
laws
pp
patsy
board
regents
florida
held
plaintiffs
need
exhaust
state
administrative
remedies
instituting
suits
federal
inapplicable
suit
theory
asserted
wisconsin
retain
authority
prescribe
rules
procedures
governing
suits
courts
authority
extend
far
permit
place
conditions
vindication
federal
right
congress
meant
provide
individuals
immediate
access
federal
courts
contemplate
sought
vindicate
federal
rights
state
courts
required
seek
redress
first
instance
state
officials
whose
hostility
rights
precipitated
injuries
merit
respondents
contention
exhaustion
requirement
imposed
wisconsin
statute
essentially
de
minimis
statutory
settlement
period
entails
none
additional
expense
undue
delay
typically
associated
administrative
remedies
alter
claimant
right
seek
full
compensation
suit
moreover
extent
exhaustion
requirement
designed
sift
specious
claims
stream
complaints
inundate
local
governments
absence
immunity
policy
inconsistent
aims
federal
legislation
pp
application
wisconsin
statute
actions
approved
matter
equitable
federalism
federal
courts
constitutionally
obligated
apply
state
law
state
claims
supremacy
clause
imposes
state
courts
constitutional
duty
proceed
manner
substantial
rights
parties
controlling
federal
law
protected
state
law
predictably
alters
outcome
claims
depending
solely
whether
brought
state
federal
within
state
obviously
inconsistent
federal
interest
intrastate
uniformity
pp
brennan
delivered
opinion
white
marshall
blackmun
stevens
scalia
kennedy
joined
white
filed
concurring
opinion
post
filed
dissenting
opinion
rehnquist
joined
post
steven
steinglass
argued
cause
petitioner
briefs
curry
first
grant
langley
argued
cause
respondents
brief
rudolph
konrad
reynold
scott
ritter
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
affirmance
filed
state
california
et
al
donald
hanaway
attorney
general
wisconsin
charles
hoornstra
arleen
michor
assistant
attorneys
general
attorneys
general
respective
follows
john
van
de
kamp
california
duane
woodard
colorado
jim
jones
idaho
linley
pearson
indiana
thomas
miller
iowa
frank
kelley
michigan
hal
stratton
new
mexico
robert
henry
oklahoma
leroy
zimmerman
pennsylvania
david
wilkinson
utah
jeffrey
amestoy
vermont
mary
sue
terry
virginia
charles
brown
west
virginia
joseph
meyer
wyoming
state
south
dakota
roger
tellinghuisen
attorney
general
wade
hubbard
craig
eichstadt
assistant
attorneys
general
international
city
management
association
et
al
benna
ruth
solomon
beate
bloch
clifton
elgarten
justice
brennan
delivered
opinion
wisconsin
statute
provides
suit
may
brought
state
state
local
governmental
entity
officer
plaintiff
must
notify
governmental
defendant
circumstances
giving
rise
claim
amount
claim
intent
hold
named
defendant
liable
statute
requires
order
afford
defendant
opportunity
consider
requested
relief
claimant
must
refrain
filing
suit
days
providing
notice
failure
comply
requirements
constitutes
grounds
dismissal
action
present
case
wisconsin
held
statute
applies
federal
civil
rights
actions
brought
state
conclude
requirements
inconsistent
federal
law
reverse
july
milwaukee
police
officers
stopped
petitioner
bobby
felder
questioning
searching
neighborhood
armed
suspect
interrogation
proved
hostile
apparently
loud
attracting
attention
petitioner
family
neighbors
succeeded
convincing
police
petitioner
man
sought
according
police
reports
officers
directed
petitioner
return
home
continued
argue
allegedly
pushed
one
thereby
precipitating
arrest
disorderly
conduct
petitioner
alleges
course
arrest
officers
beat
head
face
batons
dragged
across
ground
threw
partially
unconscious
back
paddy
wagon
face
first
full
view
family
neighbors
shortly
afterwards
response
complaints
neighbors
local
city
alderman
members
milwaukee
police
department
arrived
scene
began
interviewing
witnesses
arrest
three
days
later
local
alderman
wrote
directly
chief
police
requesting
full
investigation
incident
petitioner
black
alleges
various
members
police
department
responded
request
conspiring
cover
misconduct
arresting
officers
white
department
took
disciplinary
action
officers
city
attorney
subsequently
dropped
disorderly
conduct
charge
petitioner
nine
months
incident
petitioner
filed
action
milwaukee
county
circuit
city
milwaukee
certain
police
officers
alleging
beating
arrest
unprovoked
racially
motivated
violated
rights
fourth
fourteenth
amendments
constitution
sought
redress
well
attorney
fees
pursuant
officers
moved
dismiss
suit
based
petitioner
failure
comply
state
statute
statute
provides
action
may
brought
maintained
state
governmental
subdivision
agency
officer
unless
claimant
either
provides
written
notice
claim
within
days
alleged
injury
demonstrates
relevant
subdivision
agency
officer
actual
notice
claim
prejudiced
lack
written
notice
stat
supp
statute
provides
party
seeking
redress
must
also
submit
itemized
statement
relief
sought
governmental
subdivision
agency
days
grant
disallow
requested
relief
finally
claimants
must
bring
suit
within
six
months
receiving
notice
claim
disallowed
ibid
trial
granted
officers
motion
causes
action
denied
motion
petitioner
remaining
federal
claims
appeals
affirmed
basis
earlier
decisions
holding
statute
inapplicable
federal
civil
rights
actions
brought
state
wisconsin
however
reversed
passing
question
first
time
reasoned
congress
may
establish
procedural
framework
claims
heard
federal
courts
retain
authority
constitution
prescribe
rules
procedures
govern
actions
tribunals
accordingly
party
chooses
vindicate
congressionally
created
right
state
must
abide
state
procedures
requiring
compliance
statute
determined
frustrate
remedial
deterrent
purposes
federal
civil
rights
laws
statute
neither
limits
amount
plaintiff
may
recover
violation
civil
rights
precludes
possibility
recovery
altogether
rather
reasoned
notice
requirement
advances
state
legitimate
interests
protecting
stale
fraudulent
claims
facilitating
prompt
settlement
valid
claims
identifying
correcting
inappropriate
conduct
governmental
employees
officials
turning
question
compliance
case
concluded
complaints
lodged
local
police
petitioner
neighbors
letter
submitted
police
chief
local
alderman
failed
satisfy
statute
actual
notice
standard
communications
neither
recited
facts
giving
rise
alleged
injuries
revealed
petitioner
intent
hold
defendants
responsible
injuries
granted
certiorari
reverse
ii
one
disputes
general
unassailable
proposition
relied
upon
wisconsin
may
establish
rules
procedure
governing
litigation
courts
token
however
state
courts
entertain
federally
created
cause
action
federal
right
defeated
forms
local
practice
brown
western
alabama
question
us
today
therefore
essentially
one
application
state
provision
actions
brought
state
courts
consistent
goals
federal
civil
rights
laws
enforcement
requirement
instead
stan
obstacle
accomplishment
execution
full
purposes
objectives
congress
perez
campbell
quoting
hines
davidowitz
supremacy
clause
federal
constitution
relative
importance
state
law
material
conflict
valid
federal
law
state
law
however
clearly
within
state
acknowledged
power
interferes
contrary
federal
law
must
yield
free
bland
statute
issue
conflicts
purpose
effects
remedial
objectives
enforcement
actions
frequently
predictably
produce
different
outcomes
litigation
based
solely
whether
claim
asserted
state
federal
conclude
state
law
action
brought
state
section
creates
species
liability
favor
persons
deprived
federal
civil
rights
wielding
state
authority
repeatedly
emphasized
central
objective
civil
rights
statutes
ensure
individuals
whose
federal
constitutional
statutory
rights
abridged
may
recover
damages
secure
injunctive
relief
burnett
grattan
thus
provides
uniquely
federal
remedy
incursions
upon
rights
secured
constitution
laws
nation
mitchum
foster
accorded
sweep
broad
language
price
assessment
applicability
state
law
federal
civil
rights
litigation
therefore
must
made
light
purpose
nature
federal
right
whether
question
applicability
arises
litigation
brought
state
courts
possess
concurrent
jurisdiction
actions
see
patsy
board
regents
florida
litigation
federal
civil
rights
laws
fail
provide
certain
rules
decision
thought
essential
orderly
adjudication
rights
courts
occasionally
called
upon
borrow
state
law
see
accordingly
held
state
law
immunizes
government
conduct
otherwise
subject
suit
even
federal
civil
rights
litigation
takes
place
state
application
state
immunity
law
thwart
congressional
remedy
see
martinez
california
course
already
provides
certain
immunities
state
officials
see
davis
scherer
stump
sparkman
imbler
pachtman
similarly
actions
brought
federal
courts
disapproved
adoption
state
statutes
limitation
provide
truncated
period
time
within
file
suit
statutes
inadequately
accommodate
complexities
federal
civil
rights
litigation
thus
inconsistent
congress
compensatory
aims
burnett
supra
directed
lower
federal
courts
cases
borrow
limitations
period
personal
injury
claims
unlikely
period
limitations
applicable
claims
ever
ever
fixed
forum
state
way
discriminate
federal
claims
inconsistent
federal
law
respect
wilson
garcia
although
never
passed
question
lower
federal
courts
one
exception
concluded
provisions
inapplicable
actions
brought
federal
see
brown
app
en
banc
collecting
cases
see
cardo
lakeland
central
school
supp
sdny
courts
reasoned
unlike
lack
statutes
limitations
federal
civil
rights
laws
absence
provision
deficiency
requiring
importation
statutes
federal
civil
rights
scheme
statutes
limitation
among
universally
familiar
aspects
litigation
considered
indispensable
scheme
justice
entirely
reasonable
assume
congress
intend
create
right
enforceable
perpetuity
provisions
contrast
neither
universally
familiar
sense
indispensable
prerequisites
litigation
thus
reason
suppose
congress
intended
federal
courts
apply
rules
significantly
inhibit
ability
bring
federal
actions
app
fully
agree
conclusion
federal
courts
judgment
dispositive
question
one
adoption
nevertheless
determination
statutes
inapplicable
litigation
informs
analysis
two
crucial
respects
first
demonstrates
application
notice
requirement
burdens
exercise
federal
right
forcing
civil
rights
victims
seek
redress
state
courts
comply
requirement
entirely
absent
civil
rights
litigation
federal
courts
burden
explain
inconsistent
design
effect
compensatory
aims
federal
civil
rights
laws
second
reveals
enforcement
statutes
actions
brought
state
frequently
predictably
produce
different
outcomes
federal
civil
rights
litigation
based
solely
whether
litigation
takes
place
state
federal
may
apply
law
entertaining
substantive
federal
rights
courts
noted
central
purpose
laws
provide
compensatory
relief
deprived
federal
rights
state
actors
section
accomplishes
goal
creating
form
liability
nature
runs
specific
class
defendants
government
bodies
officials
wisconsin
statute
undermines
uniquely
federal
remedy
mitchum
foster
supra
several
ways
first
conditions
right
recovery
congress
authorized
reason
manifestly
inconsistent
purposes
federal
statute
minimize
governmental
liability
condition
neutral
uniformly
applicable
rule
procedure
rather
substantive
burden
imposed
upon
seek
redress
injuries
resulting
use
misuse
governmental
authority
second
notice
provision
discriminates
federal
right
state
affords
victim
intentional
tort
two
years
recognize
compensable
nature
injury
civil
rights
victim
given
four
months
appreciate
deprived
federal
constitutional
statutory
right
finally
notice
provision
operates
part
exhaustion
requirement
forces
claimants
seek
satisfaction
first
instance
governmental
defendant
think
plain
congress
never
intended
injured
governmental
wrongdoers
required
condition
recovery
submit
claims
government
responsible
injuries
wisconsin
statute
part
broader
legislative
scheme
governing
rights
citizens
sue
state
subdivisions
statute
earliest
current
forms
provides
circumscribed
waiver
local
governmental
immunity
limits
amount
recoverable
suits
local
governments
imposes
notice
requirements
issue
although
wisconsin
held
statutory
limits
recovery
federal
civil
rights
actions
thompson
village
hales
corners
thus
recognizes
partial
immunities
inconsistent
must
yield
federal
right
concluded
present
case
notice
exhaustion
conditions
attached
waiver
immunities
may
nevertheless
enforced
federal
actions
purposes
conditions
however
mirror
judicial
immunity
statute
replaced
statutes
enacted
primarily
benefit
governmental
defendants
civil
actions
enable
defendants
investigate
early
prepare
stronger
case
perhaps
reach
early
settlement
brown
supra
moreover
defendant
unable
obtain
satisfactory
settlement
wisconsin
statute
forces
claimants
bring
suit
within
relatively
short
period
local
governing
body
disallows
claim
order
assure
prompt
initiation
litigation
gutter
seamandel
sure
notice
requirement
serves
additional
purpose
notifying
proper
public
officials
dangerous
physical
conditions
inappropriate
unlawful
governmental
conduct
allows
prompt
corrective
measures
see
nielsen
town
silver
cliff
binder
madison
interest
however
clearly
predominant
objective
statute
indeed
wisconsin
emphasized
requisite
notice
must
spell
amount
damages
claimant
seeks
intent
hold
governing
body
responsible
damages
precisely
requirements
state
interest
minimizing
liability
expenses
associated
see
gutter
supra
statute
purpose
served
unless
claim
demands
specific
sum
money
pattermann
whitewater
distinguishing
requirement
sum
respondents
explain
state
chosen
expose
subdivisions
large
liability
defense
costs
light
choice
made
concomitant
decision
impose
conditions
assis
municipalities
controlling
costs
brief
respondents
decision
subject
state
subdivisions
liability
violations
federal
rights
however
choice
congress
wisconsin
legislature
made
decision
state
authority
override
thus
however
understandable
laudable
state
interest
controlling
liability
expenses
might
otherwise
patently
incompatible
compensatory
goals
federal
legislation
means
state
chosen
effectuate
incompatibility
revealed
design
statute
operates
condition
precedent
recovery
actions
brought
state
governmental
entities
officers
sambs
nowak
congress
previously
noted
surely
intend
assign
state
courts
legislatures
conclusive
role
formative
function
defining
characterizing
essential
elements
federal
cause
action
wilson
yet
precisely
consequence
wisconsin
done
although
party
bringing
suit
local
governmental
unit
need
allege
compliance
notice
statute
part
complaint
nielsen
supra
statute
confers
governmental
defendants
affirmative
defense
obligates
plaintiff
demonstrate
compliance
notice
requirement
may
recover
showing
altogether
unnecessary
action
brought
federal
however
may
condition
federal
right
recover
violations
civil
rights
bar
right
altogether
particularly
conditions
grow
waiver
immunity
however
necessary
assertion
rights
local
governments
entirely
irrelevant
insofar
assertion
federal
right
concerned
see
martinez
purpose
effect
conditions
applied
actions
control
expense
associated
litigation
congress
authorized
burdening
federal
right
moreover
natural
permissible
consequence
otherwise
neutral
uniformly
applicable
state
rule
although
true
statute
discriminate
state
federal
causes
action
local
governments
fact
remains
law
protection
extends
governmental
defendants
thus
conditions
right
bring
suit
persons
entities
congress
intended
subject
liability
therefore
accept
suggestion
requirement
simply
part
vast
body
procedural
rules
rooted
policies
unrelated
definition
particular
substantive
cause
action
forms
essential
part
cause
action
applied
given
plaintiff
brief
international
city
management
association
et
al
amici
curiae
brief
amici
curiae
contrary
provision
imposed
upon
specific
class
plaintiffs
sue
governmental
defendants
seen
firmly
rooted
policies
much
related
large
extent
directly
contrary
substantive
cause
action
provided
plaintiffs
focus
notice
requirement
serves
distinguish
rather
starkly
rules
uniformly
applicable
suits
rules
governing
service
process
substitution
parties
respondents
cite
examples
procedural
requirements
penalize
noncompliance
dismissal
state
courts
hear
entire
cause
action
plaintiff
complies
statute
therefore
way
alters
fact
statute
discriminates
precise
type
claim
congress
created
respondents
amici
suggest
prompt
investigation
claims
inures
benefit
claimants
local
governments
alike
providing
accurate
factual
picture
incident
statutes
enacted
primarily
benefit
governmental
defendants
intended
afford
defendants
opportunity
prepare
stronger
case
civil
actions
emphasis
added
see
also
brown
app
sound
notions
public
administration
may
support
prompt
notice
requirement
policies
necessarily
clash
remedial
purposes
federal
civil
rights
laws
wilson
held
purposes
choosing
limitations
period
actions
federal
courts
must
apply
state
statute
limitations
governing
personal
injury
claims
highly
unlikely
ever
fix
limitations
period
applicable
claims
manner
discriminate
federal
right
provision
emphatically
discriminate
manner
detrimental
federal
right
persons
wish
sue
governmental
defendants
required
provide
notice
within
abbreviated
time
period
many
civil
rights
victims
however
fail
appreciate
compensable
nature
injuries
within
window
provided
provision
thus
barred
asserting
federal
right
recovery
state
unless
show
defendant
actual
notice
injury
circumstances
giving
rise
claimant
intent
hold
defendant
responsible
showing
facts
case
vividly
demonstrate
easily
made
wisconsin
finally
notice
provision
imposes
exhaustion
requirement
persons
choose
assert
federal
right
state
courts
inasmuch
plaintiff
must
provide
requisite
notice
injury
within
days
civil
rights
violation
wait
additional
days
governmental
defendant
investigates
claim
attempts
settle
patsy
board
regents
florida
held
plaintiffs
need
exhaust
state
administrative
remedies
instituting
suits
federal
wisconsin
however
deemed
decision
inapplicable
suit
theory
retain
authority
prescribe
rules
procedures
governing
suits
courts
explained
however
authority
extend
far
permit
place
conditions
vindication
federal
right
moreover
noted
patsy
congress
enacted
response
widespread
deprivations
civil
rights
southern
inability
unwillingness
authorities
protect
rights
punish
wrongdoers
patsy
supra
see
also
wilson
garcia
although
true
principal
remedy
congress
chose
provide
injured
persons
immediate
access
federal
courts
patsy
supra
leave
protection
rights
exclusively
hands
federal
judiciary
instead
conferred
concurrent
jurisdiction
state
courts
well
given
evil
federal
civil
rights
legislation
aimed
simply
reason
suppose
congress
meant
provide
individuals
immediate
access
federal
courts
notwithstanding
provision
state
law
contrary
yet
contemplated
sought
vindicate
federal
rights
state
courts
required
seek
redress
first
instance
state
officials
whose
hostility
rights
precipitated
injuries
respondents
nevertheless
argue
exhaustion
requirement
imposed
statute
essentially
de
minimis
statutory
settlement
period
entails
none
additional
expense
undue
delay
typically
associated
administrative
remedies
indeed
alter
claimant
right
seek
full
compensation
suit
argument
fails
two
reasons
first
ignores
prior
assessment
dominant
characteristic
civil
rights
actions
belong
burnett
emphasis
added
causes
action
explained
exist
independent
legal
administrative
relief
may
available
matter
federal
state
law
judicially
enforceable
first
instance
ibid
emphasis
added
dominant
characteristic
action
course
vary
depending
upon
whether
litigated
state
federal
therefore
may
adulterate
dilute
predominant
feature
federal
right
imposing
mandatory
settlement
periods
matter
reasonable
administrative
waiting
period
interests
designed
serve
may
appear
second
decision
patsy
rested
legislative
history
also
facts
civil
rights
institutionalized
persons
act
stat
congress
established
exhaustion
requirement
specific
class
actions
brought
adult
prisoners
challenging
conditions
confinement
congress
expressly
recognized
working
change
law
accordingly
refused
engraft
exhaustion
requirement
onto
another
type
action
congress
provided
one
judicial
imposition
requirement
inconsistent
congress
recognition
plaintiffs
normally
need
exhaust
administrative
remedies
also
decisions
concerning
desirability
scope
design
exhaustion
requirement
turn
host
policy
considerations
invariably
point
one
direction
reason
best
left
congress
superior
institutional
competence
olicy
considerations
alone
concluded
justify
judicially
imposed
exhaustion
unless
exhaustion
consistent
congressional
intent
ibid
exhaustion
required
wisconsin
statute
involve
lengthy
expensive
administrative
proceedings
forces
injured
persons
seek
satisfaction
alleged
caused
injury
first
place
dispute
resolution
system
may
much
commend
judgment
current
congress
must
make
think
plain
congress
enacted
years
ago
rejected
utterly
inconsistent
remedial
purposes
broad
statute
notion
state
require
civil
rights
victims
seek
compensation
offending
state
officials
assert
federal
action
state
finally
extent
exhaustion
requirement
designed
sift
specious
claims
stream
complaints
inundate
local
governments
absence
immunity
see
nielsen
rejected
policy
inconsistent
aims
federal
legislation
burnett
state
officials
urged
adoption
limitations
period
action
order
might
enjoy
reasonable
protection
seemingly
endless
stream
unfounded
often
stale
lawsuits
brought
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
citation
omitted
contention
noted
reflects
part
judgment
factors
minimizing
diversion
state
officials
attention
duties
outweigh
interest
providing
claimants
ready
access
forum
resolve
valid
claims
explained
reaffirm
today
hat
policy
manifestly
inconsistent
central
objective
civil
rights
statutes
ibid
respondents
supporting
amici
urge
approve
application
statute
actions
brought
state
matter
equitable
federalism
note
general
rule
bottomed
deeply
belief
importance
state
control
state
judicial
procedure
federal
law
takes
state
courts
finds
brief
amici
curiae
quoting
hart
relations
state
federal
law
colum
rev
litigants
choose
bring
civil
rights
actions
state
courts
presumably
order
obtain
benefit
certain
procedural
advantages
courts
draw
juries
urban
populations
availed
benefits
civil
rights
litigants
must
comply
well
state
rules
find
less
liking
however
equitable
argument
may
appear
abstract
place
supremacy
clause
analysis
federal
law
takes
state
courts
finds
insofar
courts
employ
rules
impose
unnecessary
burdens
upon
rights
recovery
authorized
federal
laws
brown
western
alabama
see
also
monessen
morgan
state
rule
designed
encourage
settlement
limit
recovery
federally
created
action
may
make
litigation
federal
rights
congenial
see
fit
quid
pro
quo
compliance
uncongenial
rules
congeniality
stand
obstacle
accomplishment
congress
goals
seen
enforcement
statute
actions
brought
state
interferes
frustrates
substantive
right
congress
created
supremacy
clause
must
yield
federal
interest
interference
however
consequence
statute
renders
application
cases
invalid
state
demands
compliance
statute
action
may
brought
maintained
courts
outcome
federal
civil
rights
litigation
frequently
predictably
depend
whether
brought
state
federal
thus
notions
federalism
upon
respondents
rely
dictate
state
law
must
give
way
party
asserts
federal
right
state
erie
tompkins
federal
exercises
diversity
pendent
jurisdiction
claims
outcome
litigation
federal
substantially
far
legal
rules
determine
outcome
litigation
tried
state
guaranty
trust
york
accordingly
federal
courts
entertaining
claims
wisconsin
municipalities
obligated
apply
provision
see
orthmann
apple
river
campground
federal
courts
constitutionally
obligated
apply
state
law
state
claims
see
erie
supra
supremacy
clause
imposes
state
courts
constitutional
duty
proceed
manner
substantial
rights
parties
controlling
federal
law
protected
garrett
civil
rights
victims
often
appreciate
constitutional
nature
injuries
see
burnett
thus
fail
file
notice
injury
claim
within
requisite
time
period
see
supra
wisconsin
mere
four
months
unless
claimants
prove
governmental
defendant
actual
notice
claim
already
noted
means
simple
task
wisconsin
unless
also
file
itemized
claim
damages
must
bring
suits
federal
wisconsin
however
may
alter
outcome
federal
claims
chooses
entertain
courts
demanding
compliance
rules
inapplicable
claims
brought
federal
hatever
springes
state
may
set
endeavoring
assert
rights
state
confers
assertion
federal
rights
plainly
reasonably
made
defeated
name
local
practice
brown
western
alabama
supra
quoting
davis
wechsler
state
statute
mere
rule
procedure
discussed
statute
substantive
condition
right
sue
governmental
officials
entities
federal
courts
therefore
correctly
recognized
notice
statute
governs
adjudication
claims
diversity
actions
orthmann
supra
guaranty
trust
supra
held
order
give
effect
state
statute
limitations
federal
hear
action
state
deem
time
barred
conversely
state
may
decline
hear
otherwise
properly
presented
federal
claim
claim
barred
state
law
requiring
timely
filing
notice
state
courts
simply
free
vindicate
substantive
interests
underlying
state
rule
decision
expense
federal
right
finally
wilson
characterized
suits
claims
personal
injuries
approach
ensured
limitations
period
govern
actions
brought
given
state
thus
comported
congress
desire
federal
civil
rights
laws
given
uniform
application
within
state
law
predictably
alters
outcome
claims
depending
solely
whether
brought
state
federal
within
state
obviously
inconsistent
federal
interest
intrastate
uniformity
iii
enacting
congress
entitled
deprived
civil
rights
recover
full
compensation
governmental
officials
responsible
deprivations
state
law
conditions
right
recovery
upon
compliance
rule
designed
minimize
governmental
liability
directs
injured
persons
seek
redress
first
instance
targets
federal
legislation
inconsistent
purpose
effect
remedial
objectives
federal
civil
rights
law
principles
federalism
well
supremacy
clause
dictate
state
law
must
give
way
vindication
federal
right
right
asserted
state
accordingly
judgment
wisconsin
reversed
case
remanded
proceedings
inconsistent
opinion
ordered
footnotes
every
person
color
statute
ordinance
regulation
custom
usage
state
subjects
causes
subjected
citizen
person
within
jurisdiction
thereof
deprivation
rights
privileges
immunities
secured
constitution
laws
shall
liable
party
injured
action
law
suit
equity
proper
proceeding
redress
section
provides
relevant
part
except
provided
sub
action
may
brought
maintained
governmental
subdivision
agency
thereof
officer
official
agent
employe
subdivision
agency
acts
done
official
capacity
course
agency
employment
upon
claim
cause
action
unless
within
days
happening
event
giving
rise
claim
written
notice
circumstances
claim
signed
party
agent
attorney
served
governmental
subdivision
agency
officer
official
agent
employe
failure
give
requisite
notice
shall
bar
action
claim
governmental
subdivision
agency
actual
notice
claim
claimant
shows
satisfaction
delay
failure
give
requisite
notice
prejudicial
defendant
subdivision
agency
defendant
officer
official
agent
employe
claim
containing
address
claimant
itemized
statement
relief
sought
presented
appropriate
clerk
person
performs
duties
clerk
secretary
defendant
subdivision
agency
claim
disallowed
failure
appropriate
body
disallow
within
days
presentation
disallowance
notice
disallowance
shall
served
claimant
registered
certified
mail
receipt
therefor
signed
claimant
returned
registered
letter
shall
proof
service
action
claim
defendant
subdivision
agency
defendant
officer
official
agent
employe
may
brought
months
date
service
notice
notice
shall
contain
statement
effect
statute
require
claimants
recognize
specify
constitutional
nature
injuries
may
initiate
action
certain
constitutional
injuries
course
deprivation
liberty
petitioner
suffered
obvious
readily
recognized
tort
analogues
battery
although
state
affords
victim
intentional
tort
two
years
appreciate
suffered
compensable
injury
stat
drastically
reduces
time
period
tortfeasor
governmental
officer
employee
moreover
many
deprivations
involving
denial
due
process
equal
protection
far
subtle
latter
means
negligible
category
constitutional
injuries
victims
frequently
fail
recognize
within
statutory
period
wronged
several
amici
note
even
congress
war
era
undertake
try
reform
state
procedures
field
constitutional
adjudication
brief
amici
curiae
conclude
congress
intend
interfere
procedural
perquisites
courts
argument
misses
mark
defects
congress
perceived
state
courts
lay
jury
factfinding
processes
course
skewed
local
prejudices
see
patsy
board
regents
florida
otherwise
neutral
rules
procedure
fact
congress
saw
need
alter
neutral
procedural
rules
way
suggests
future
procedures
including
exhaustion
requirements
unheard
time
enactment
apply
injuries
inflicted
targets
statute
similarly
consistent
purposes
intent
federal
civil
rights
laws
justice
white
concurring
disputed
congress
included
statute
limitations
state
entertained
suit
apply
statute
limitations
observed
early
case
brought
federal
employers
liability
act
stat
et
federal
act
available
state
found
right
record
shows
lapse
time
ct
says
action
shall
maintained
action
must
fail
courts
state
atlantic
coast
line
burnette
see
also
engel
davenport
mcallister
magnolia
petroleum
brennan
concurring
similarly
determined
particular
state
statute
limitations
borrowed
order
effectuate
congressional
intent
underlying
federal
cause
action
contains
statute
limitations
state
entertains
federal
cause
action
must
apply
state
statute
limitations
made
determination
wilson
garcia
held
suits
must
matter
federal
law
governed
state
statute
limitations
applicable
tort
suits
recovery
damages
personal
injuries
reasoned
choice
single
statute
limitations
within
state
supported
federal
interests
uniformity
certainty
minimization
unnecessary
litigation
choice
statute
limitations
supported
nature
remedy
federal
interest
ensuring
borrowed
period
limitations
discriminate
federal
civil
rights
remedy
since
assumed
wilson
garcia
governs
timeliness
suits
brought
state
well
federal
see
russell
anchorage
alaska
ziccardi
pennsylvania
dept
general
services
commw
walker
maruffi
app
cert
denied
table
maddocks
salt
lake
city
utah
south
salina
street
syracuse
appeal
dism
fuchilla
layman
super
aff
henderson
state
idaho
cert
denied
frisby
board
education
boyle
county
app
vanaman
palmer
del
super
hanson
madison
service
app
wisconsin
likewise
assumed
wilson
garcia
governed
statute
limitations
apply
petitioner
claim
effectively
truncated
applicable
limitations
period
however
dismissing
petitioner
suit
failure
file
notice
claim
within
days
events
issue
required
stat
supp
hence
petitioner
allowed
four
months
investigate
whether
facts
law
support
claim
respondents
retain
lawyer
notify
respondents
claim
rather
two
three
years
allowed
wisconsin
law
sought
assert
similar
claim
private
party
also
unlikely
state
apply
limitations
period
indeed
limitations
period
less
one
year
claim
reflects
generally
accepted
belief
among
state
policymakers
individuals
suffered
injuries
personal
rights
fairly
expected
seek
redress
within
short
period
time
application
wisconsin
statute
bar
petitioner
suit
reality
action
injury
personal
rights
quoting
opinion
thus
undermines
purposes
wilson
garcia
promote
federal
interests
uniformity
certainty
minimization
unnecessary
litigation
assure
state
procedural
rules
discriminate
federal
civil
rights
remedy
therefore
agree
view
adverse
impact
wisconsin
statute
federal
policies
articulated
wilson
garcia
supremacy
clause
proscribes
statute
application
suits
brought
wisconsin
state
courts
explaining
characterization
claims
purposes
question
federal
law
observed
congress
surely
intend
assign
state
courts
legislatures
conclusive
role
formative
function
defining
characterizing
essential
elements
federal
cause
action
decide
whether
claim
governed
statute
limitations
applicable
intentional
torts
stat
statute
limitations
applicable
generally
injuries
person
sure
provides
failure
file
notice
claim
within
initial
period
shall
bar
action
claim
governmental
subdivision
agency
actual
notice
claim
claimant
shows
satisfaction
delay
failure
give
requisite
notice
prejudicial
defendant
facts
case
demonstrate
however
actual
notice
requirement
difficult
satisfy
example
wisconsin
held
respondents
received
actual
notice
petitioner
claim
even
though
local
alderman
written
directly
chief
police
requesting
investigation
incident
three
days
occurrence
see
shapiro
choosing
appropriate
state
statute
limitations
section
claims
wilson
garcia
balt
rev
listing
potentially
applicable
limitations
periods
district
columbia
comment
memphis
rev
listing
potentially
applicable
limitations
periods
district
columbia
puerto
rico
justice
chief
justice
joins
dissenting
state
statute
considered
inconsistent
federal
law
merely
statute
causes
plaintiff
lose
litigation
robertson
wegmann
disregarding
principle
today
holds
wisconsin
notice
claim
statute
federal
law
actions
filed
state
holding
supported
statute
whose
force
purports
invoke
precedents
relying
intuitions
goals
federal
civil
rights
laws
ante
fashions
new
theory
unnecessarily
improperly
suspends
perfectly
valid
state
statute
said
unenacted
approvals
beliefs
desires
laws
puerto
rico
dept
consumer
affairs
isla
petroleum
today
exercise
departs
unquestionable
proposition
even
much
obvious
principle
unexpressed
approvals
beliefs
desires
laws
section
worth
recalling
creates
substantive
law
merely
provides
one
vehicle
certain
provisions
constitution
federal
laws
may
judicially
enforced
purpose
repeatedly
said
interpose
federal
courts
people
guardians
people
federal
rights
patsy
board
regents
florida
quoting
mitchum
foster
emphasis
added
reason
original
version
provided
federal
courts
exclusive
jurisdiction
actions
arising
see
civil
rights
act
ch
stat
fact
conclusive
proof
congress
enacted
years
ago
ante
possibly
meant
thereby
alter
operation
state
courts
way
using
procedural
statutes
like
one
issue
today
state
courts
may
entertain
actions
plaintiff
chooses
state
federal
forum
always
available
matter
right
see
martinez
california
abandoning
rule
exclusive
federal
jurisdiction
actions
thus
restoring
tradition
concurrent
jurisdiction
however
leave
behind
grin
without
statutory
cat
puerto
rico
dept
consumer
affairs
isla
petroleum
supra
congress
never
given
slightest
indication
meant
replace
state
procedural
rules
apply
federal
courts
majority
cite
evidence
contrary
effort
remedy
fatal
defect
position
majority
engages
extended
discussion
patsy
board
regents
florida
supra
see
ante
patsy
however
actually
undermines
majority
conclusion
case
concluded
state
exhaustion
remedies
requirements
applied
actions
brought
federal
relied
legislative
history
indicating
meant
provide
federal
forum
characteristics
different
state
courts
came
limited
hesitant
conclusion
seems
fair
infer
congress
intend
individual
compelled
every
case
exhaust
state
administrative
remedies
filing
action
emphasis
added
even
limited
conclusion
admitted
somewhat
precarious
made
sense
able
rely
general
proposition
holding
patsy
follows
fortiori
adopts
today
patsy
also
relied
civil
rights
institutionalized
persons
act
stat
ordinarily
requires
exhaustion
state
remedies
adult
prisoner
bring
action
federal
concluded
legislative
history
demonstrates
congress
taken
approach
carving
specific
exceptions
general
rule
federal
courts
require
exhaustion
emphasis
added
finding
lends
support
proposition
congress
never
concerned
application
exhaustion
requirements
state
courts
conclusively
shows
congress
believe
requirements
somehow
inherently
incompatible
nature
actions
similar
reasons
brown
western
alabama
repeatedly
quoted
majority
control
present
case
brown
arose
federal
employers
liability
act
fela
refused
accept
state
interpretation
allegations
complaint
asserting
federal
statutory
right
concluding
state
interpretation
complaint
operated
detract
substantive
rights
granted
congress
fela
cases
simply
ld
facts
alleged
error
dismiss
complaint
claimant
allowed
try
case
citations
omitted
see
also
garrett
deeply
rooted
admiralty
right
certain
presumption
part
substance
plaintiff
claim
considered
mere
incident
form
procedure
citations
omitted
case
us
today
contrast
statute
issue
diminish
alter
substantive
right
cognizable
majority
concedes
wisconsin
courts
hear
entire
cause
action
plaintiff
complies
statute
ante
unable
find
support
position
legislative
history
majority
suggests
wisconsin
statute
somehow
discriminates
federal
right
ante
wisconsin
statute
however
applies
actions
municipal
defendants
whether
brought
state
federal
law
majority
therefore
compelled
adopt
new
theory
discrimination
challenged
statute
said
conditio
right
bring
suit
persons
entities
local
governments
officials
congress
intended
subject
liability
ante
theory
however
untenable
first
statute
erects
barrier
plaintiff
right
bring
suit
anyone
every
plaintiff
option
proceeding
federal
wisconsin
statute
slightest
effect
right
second
plaintiff
chooses
proceed
wisconsin
state
courts
courts
stand
ready
hear
entire
federal
cause
action
majority
concedes
see
ante
thus
wisconsin
statute
discriminates
right
congress
never
created
right
plaintiff
benefit
selected
federal
procedures
plaintiff
rejected
federal
forum
chosen
state
forum
instead
majority
discrimination
theory
another
version
unsupported
conclusion
congress
intended
force
state
courts
adopt
procedural
rules
federal
courts
also
suggests
parallel
case
cases
tried
federal
doctrine
erie
tompkins
quoting
test
guaranty
trust
york
opines
today
state
courts
hearing
federal
suits
obliged
mirror
federal
procedures
extent
federal
courts
obliged
mirror
state
procedures
diversity
suits
suggestion
seems
based
sort
theory
federalism
attributes
congress
basis
evidence
implications
theory
quite
clear
means
theory
taken
seriously
follow
defendants
well
plaintiffs
entitled
benefit
federal
procedural
rules
outcome
determinative
however
means
create
rule
benefits
plaintiffs
discussion
erie
principles
simply
unsuccessful
effort
find
analogy
matter
attenuated
today
unprecedented
holding
borrowing
cases
cites
several
times
little
today
decision
erie
statute
cases
sometimes
called
upon
fill
gaps
federal
law
choosing
state
procedural
rule
application
actions
brought
federal
see
wilson
garcia
burnett
grattan
congressionally
imposed
necessity
supplementing
federal
law
state
procedural
rules
might
well
caution
us
supplanting
state
procedural
rules
federal
gaps
certainly
offers
support
today
noted
outset
majority
correctly
characterizes
issue
us
one
statutory
order
arrive
result
chosen
however
forced
search
inconsistencies
wisconsin
notice
claim
statute
federal
policy
congress
never
articulated
implied
suggested
let
alone
enacted
difficulty
explaining
absence
congressional
attention
problem
wrongly
imagines
solving
plaintiff
chooses
bring
action
state
necessarily
rejects
federal
courts
congress
provided
virtually
conceivable
reason
benefit
procedural
advantages
available
exclusively
state
voted
feet
state
procedural
systems
plaintiffs
hardly
position
ask
congress
new
type
forum
combines
advantages
congress
gave
federal
system
congress
give
available
state
courts
fortunately
plaintiffs
however
congress
need
consulted
concept
statutory
takes
new
meaning
today
one
respectfully
dissent