relying on Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990), and noting that “state treatment of sovereign immunity is not relevant to a determination of whether a party is immune from § 1983 liability because only federal jurisprudence is controlling on this issue.”
How later courts described this case
- relying on Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990), and noting that “state treatment of sovereign immunity is not relevant to a determination of whether a party is immune from § 1983 liability because only federal jurisprudence is controlling on this issue.”
- recognizing that immunity provided to state entities under Kentucky law does not apply to federal claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
- holding that county judge/executive’s decision to terminate former county corrections department officer was discretionary
- “Howlett [v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990),] states clearly that state treatment of sovereign immunity is not relevant to a determination of whether a party is immune from § 1983 liability because only federal jurisprudence is controlling on this issue.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
LAMBERT, Chief Justice,
Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part.
I must dissent from the majority opinion with respect to its reliance on Howlett v. Rose 1 as the basis for its decision that governmental entities of Jefferson County are subject to suit in Kentucky state courts for claims filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . I believe that the majority has incorrectly analyzed Howlett and overlooked long-standing Kentucky law that recognizes counties and county governments as arms of the state that are entitled to the same sovereign immunity of the state.
. 496 U.S. 356 , 110 S.Ct 2430 , 110 L.Ed.2d 332 (1990).