noting that Illinois state immunity is not as broad as federal immunity, in part because Illinois provides immunity "for discretionary acts taken within the scope of [state officials'] duty," inferring that federal immunity extends to both discretionary and mandatory acts
How later courts described this case
- noting that Illinois state immunity is not as broad as federal immunity, in part because Illinois provides immunity "for discretionary acts taken within the scope of [state officials'] duty," inferring that federal immunity extends to both discretionary and mandatory acts
- “Federal Rule 17(b) provides that an unincorporated association has the capacity to be sued in its own name if such capacity is provided for under state law or if the action is based upon constitutional rights or the laws of the United States.”
- rejecting this argument as it would "obviously constitute an unwarranted interference by this court with the substantive law of [a state]."
- state would be real party in interest if it would bear financial burden of verdict against state official
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
FAIRCHILD, Senior Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur in all respects except as to the quashing of service of process to the individual defendants McCadden, Higgins, Fry, Miller, Greenlief, and Goodrich. I agree that the trial court’s order to quash should be upheld. However, I would do so on the basis that service by mail was ineffective. The local district court “standing order on service” purporting to authorize service by certified or registered mail was inconsistent with F.R.Civ.P. Rule 4(d)(1) which requires personal service and was therefore invalid.