Dataset Preview
The full dataset viewer is not available (click to read why). Only showing a preview of the rows.
Previous task error: I/O error: I/O error: Permission denied (os error 13)
Error code: UnexpectedError
Need help to make the dataset viewer work? Make sure to review how to configure the dataset viewer, and open a discussion for direct support.
id string | domain string | prefix string | rule string | authority string | juris string | status string | source string |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SOV-01 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | The Eleventh Amendment bars federal suits against an unconsenting state by citizens of that or another state. | U.S. Const. amend. XI | US | ✓ | SOV-02, SOV-03 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/eleventh_amendment · "The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects o... |
SOV-02 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | State sovereign immunity extends beyond the Amendment's text to bar suits by a state's own citizens under Hans v. Louisiana. | Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890) | US | ✓ | SOV-01 · MP✓ 06-18 (tx: Neutral): 11th Am bars own-citizen federal suit (core holding) · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://app.midpage.ai/document/hans-v-louisiana-92702 · "a suit directly against a State by one of its own citizens is not one to which the judicial power of the United States extends, unless the State itself... |
SOV-03 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | Eleventh Amendment immunity is a threshold jurisdictional bar; a federal court must resolve it before reaching the merits. | Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 678 (1974) | US | ✓ | SOV-01 · MP✓ 06-18 (tx: Caution): retroactive monetary barred / prospective OK; fund-participation ≠ waiver — cite core holding |
SOV-04 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | A state agency or instrumentality that is an arm of the state shares the state's Eleventh Amendment immunity. | Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Doe, 519 U.S. 425, 429–430 (1997) | US | ✓ | SOV-01 · MP✓ 06-19 (tx: Neutral): 11th Am extends to state instrumentalities; federal indemnification does not divest immunity — core holding · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://app.midpage.ai/document/regents-of-university-of-california-118087 · "the reference to actions 'against one of the United States' encompasses not ... |
SOV-05 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | Colorado Department of Revenue is a state agency and arm of the state for Eleventh Amendment purposes. | C.R.S. § 24-35-101 (DOR statutory creation); see SOV-04 | CO | ✓ | SOV-01, SOV-04 · VALc✓ 06-18 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://law.colorado.gov/legislative-resources/colorado-revised-statutes · "There is hereby created in the executive department the department of revenue." · treatment N/A — state statute + doctrinal application |
SOV-06 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | Immunity bars retrospective monetary relief payable from the state treasury, regardless of how the claim is labeled. | Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 663–670 (1974) | US | ✓ | SOV-07, SOV-18 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://app.midpage.ai/document/edelman-v-jordan-108990 · "a suit by private parties seeking to impose a liability which must be paid from public funds in the state treasury is barred by the Eleventh Amendment." · treatment Caution (10,714 citations) |
SOV-07 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | Immunity does not bar prospective injunctive/declaratory relief against state officers under Ex parte Young. | Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 155–156 (1908) | US | ✓ | SOV-18, SOV-19, SOV-20 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://app.midpage.ai/document/ex-parte-young-96819 · "If the act which the state Attorney General seeks to enforce be a violation of the Federal Constitution, the officer in proceeding under such enactment comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitut... |
SOV-08 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | Congress may abrogate state immunity only pursuant to a valid constitutional grant of power. | Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 55–59 (1996) | US | ✓ | SOV-09, SOV-10 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://app.midpage.ai/document/seminole-tribe-of-florida-v-118011 · "The Eleventh Amendment restricts the judicial power under Article III, and Article I cannot be used to circumvent the constitutional limitations placed upon federal jurisdiction." · treatment Caution (7,090 cita... |
SOV-09 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | The Commerce Clause does not authorize abrogation of state sovereign immunity. | Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 66 (1996) | US | ✓ | SOV-08 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://app.midpage.ai/document/seminole-tribe-of-florida-v-118011 · "notwithstanding Congress' clear intent to abrogate the States' sovereign immunity, the Indian Commerce Clause does not grant Congress that power." · treatment Caution (7,090 citations) |
SOV-10 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment is a valid source of congressional power to abrogate state immunity. | City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 517–519 (1997) | US | ✓ | SOV-11, SOV-12 |
SOV-11 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | Section 5 legislation must be congruent and proportional to a pattern of state constitutional violations to sustain abrogation. | City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 520 (1997) | US | ✓ | SOV-12, SOV-13 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://app.midpage.ai/document/city-of-boerne-v-flores-118140 · "There must be a congruence and proportionality between the injury to be prevented or remedied and the means adopted to that end." · treatment Negative (2,370 citations — limited to RFRA invalidation; C&P test univer... |
SOV-12 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | The congruence-and-proportionality test requires: (1) identify constitutional right; (2) document pattern of state violations; (3) assess proportionality of remedy. | City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 532–533 (1997) | US | ✓ | SOV-11 |
SOV-13 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | Congress must make an unequivocal, clear statement in the statute's text that it intends to abrogate. | Dellmuth v. Muth, 491 U.S. 223, 228 (1989) | US | ✓ | SOV-08 · MP✓ 06-18 (tx: Neutral): abrogation must be unmistakably clear in statutory text · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://app.midpage.ai/document/dellmuth-v-muth-112292 · "Congress may abrogate the States' constitutionally secured immunity from suit in federal court only by making its intention unmistakably clear in th... |
SOV-14 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | ADA Title I's purported abrogation of state immunity for money damages is invalid under Section 5. | Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 374 (2001) | US | ✓ | SOV-11, SOV-15 · Midpage tx: Caution (re-check before filing) · xref: WRK-10, EMP-11 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://app.midpage.ai/document/board-of-trustees-of-univ-118407 · "suits by state employees against a State for money damages by reason of the State's failure to comply with the provisions of Title I of the Ame... |
SOV-15 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | Garrett: Congress failed to identify a pattern of unconstitutional state employment discrimination against the disabled sufficient to justify Title I's remedy. | Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 368–371 (2001) | US | ✓ | SOV-14 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://app.midpage.ai/document/board-of-trustees-of-univ-118407 · "The legislative record of the ADA, however, simply fails to show that Congress did in fact identify a pattern of irrational state discrimination in employment against the disabled." · treatment Caution (4,255 citations) |
SOV-16 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | After Garrett, a state employee cannot recover money damages against a state employer under ADA Title I in federal court. | Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 374 (2001) | US | ✓ | SOV-14, SOV-32 · Midpage tx: Caution (re-check before filing) · xref: WRK-10, WRK-61 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://app.midpage.ai/document/board-of-trustees-of-univ-118407 · "suits by state employees against a State for money damages by reason of the State's failure to comply with the provisions of Title I of the Ame... |
SOV-17 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | Garrett does not bar prospective injunctive relief against state officials under ADA Title I + Ex parte Young. | Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908); see Garrett, 531 U.S. at 374 n.9 | US | ✓ | SOV-18, SOV-19 · MP✓ 06-18 (tx: Caution): Ex parte Young: prospective injunctive vs state officer — cite core holding · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://app.midpage.ai/document/ex-parte-young-96819 · "If the act which the state Attorney General seeks to enforce be a violation of the Federal Constitution, the officer in pr... |
SOV-18 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | Ex parte Young fiction: a state officer acting unconstitutionally is "stripped" of state identity for prospective-relief purposes. | Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 159–160 (1908) | US | ✓ | SOV-07, SOV-19 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://app.midpage.ai/document/ex-parte-young-96819 · "If the act which the state Attorney General seeks to enforce be a violation of the Federal Constitution, the officer in proceeding under such enactment comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and... |
SOV-19 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | For Ex parte Young, the officer must have "some connection" with enforcement of the challenged law or policy. | Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 157 (1908); Okla. ex rel. Johnson v. Cook, 304 U.S. 387 (1938) | US | ✓ | SOV-18 · MP✓ 06-18 (tx: Caution): Ex parte Young: officer stripped of immunity for unconstitutional enforcement — core holding · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://app.midpage.ai/document/ex-parte-young-96819 · "in making an officer of the State a party defendant in a suit to enjoin the enforcement of an act alleged to be u... |
SOV-20 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | Ex parte Young does not permit retroactive monetary relief (back pay) from state funds — only prospective injunction/declaration. | Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 677–678 (1974) | US | ✓ | SOV-06, SOV-18 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://app.midpage.ai/document/edelman-v-jordan-108990 · "a federal court's remedial power, consistent with the Eleventh Amendment, is necessarily limited to prospective injunctive relief, Ex parte Young, supra, and may not include a retroactive award which requires the payment o... |
SOV-21 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | Prospective declaratory judgment that a state policy is unconstitutional is available under Ex parte Young, but notice/retroactive relief is barred absent an ongoing violation. | Green v. Mansour, 474 U.S. 64, 68–72 (1986) | US | ✓ | SOV-18, SOV-20 · MP✓ 06-18 (tx: Caution): no notice/retroactive relief absent ongoing violation — core holding · ✎1 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://app.midpage.ai/document/green-v-mansour-111540 · "the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution and applicable principles governing the issuance of declaratory j... |
SOV-22 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | Reinstatement to a former position is prospective relief obtainable against a state officer via Ex parte Young. | Meiners v. Univ. of Kan., 359 F.3d 1222, 1232 (10th Cir. 2004); Nelson v. Geringer, 295 F.3d 1082, 1095–1098 (10th Cir. 2002); Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U.S. 267, 289–290 (1977) (prospective-compliance exception) | US | ✓ | SOV-18 · MP 06-18 (tx: Caution, 1097): Milliken confirms the Ex parte Young prospective-compliance exception (relief with future treasury impact OK); it does NOT address reinstatement specifically. · xref: WRK-86, CIV-84 · ✎1 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/359/1222/5190... |
SOV-23 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | ADA Title II abrogation is analyzed service-by-service, not wholesale; validity turns on the constitutional right at stake. | Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509, 530–531 (2004) | US | ✓ | SOV-24, SOV-25 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://app.midpage.ai/document/tennessee-v-lane-134743 · "nothing in our case law requires us to consider Title II, with its wide variety of applications, as an undifferentiated whole." · treatment Neutral (1,814 citations) |
SOV-24 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | Where Title II reaches denial of access to a fundamental right (e.g., court access), abrogation is a valid Section 5 enactment. | Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509, 533–534 (2004) | US | ✓ | SOV-23 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://app.midpage.ai/document/tennessee-v-lane-134743 · "Title II, as it applies to the class of cases implicating the fundamental right of access to the courts, constitutes a valid exercise of Congress' §5 authority to enforce the guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment." · treatment Ne... |
SOV-25 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | Where Title II enforces actual constitutional violations — not just ADA-standard violations — Congress may validly abrogate immunity and damages flow. | United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151, 159 (2006) | US | ✓ | SOV-23, SOV-26 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://app.midpage.ai/document/united-states-v-georgia-145697 · "insofar as Title II creates a private cause of action for damages against the States for conduct that actually violates the Fourteenth Amendment, Title II validly abrogates state sovereign immunity." · treatment Cau... |
SOV-26 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | Georgia three-step: (1) identify which Title II conduct violates the Constitution; (2) that conduct may be remedied via Title II damages; (3) remainder of Title II conduct assessed under congruence-and-proportionality. | United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151, 159 (2006) | US | ✓ | SOV-25 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://app.midpage.ai/document/united-states-v-georgia-145697 · "the lower courts will be best situated to determine in the first instance, on a claim-by-claim basis, (1) which aspects of the State's alleged conduct violated Title II; (2) to what extent such misconduct also violated the ... |
SOV-27 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | Title II damages against a state are available where the plaintiff proves an Eighth Amendment violation — constitutional floor, not just statutory standard. | United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151, 157–159 (2006) | US | ✓ | SOV-25, SOV-26 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://app.midpage.ai/document/united-states-v-georgia-145697 · "insofar as Title II creates a private cause of action for damages against the States for conduct that actually violates the Fourteenth Amendment, Title II validly abrogates state sovereign immunity." · treatment Cau... |
SOV-28 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | ADA Title II does not provide a cause of action for employment discrimination by state employees; that is Title I's exclusive province under 10th Circuit law; and Title I damages against states are barred by Garrett. | Elwell v. Okla. ex rel. Bd. of Regents, 693 F.3d 1303, 1309–1316 (10th Cir. 2012); Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001) | US | ✓ | SOV-14, SOV-23 · VALc-case 06-18: Accurate; Title II state-employment damages remain unsettled, circuits lean Garrett. · ✎1 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://app.midpage.ai/document/elwell-v-oklahoma-ex-rel-808268?utm_source=mcp · "Congress has spoken and spoken clearly to the question of employment discrimination claims... |
SOV-29 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | Section 504 is enacted under the Spending Clause; states waive immunity by accepting federal financial assistance. | 29 U.S.C. § 794; Barnes v. Gorman, 536 U.S. 181, 185 (2002) | US | ✓ | SOV-30, SOV-31 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://app.midpage.ai/document/barnes-v-gorman-121152?utm_source=mcp · "We have repeatedly characterized this statute and other Spending Clause legislation as "much in the nature of a contract: in return for federal funds, the [recipients] agree to comply with federally imposed c... |
SOV-30 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | The Tenth Circuit holds that a state accepting federal funds waives Eleventh Amendment immunity from § 504 suits. | Arbogast v. Kan. Dep't of Labor, 789 F.3d 1174, 1182–1183 (10th Cir. 2015) | US/CO | ✓ | SOV-29, SOV-32 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://app.midpage.ai/document/arbogast-v-kansas-department-of-2810152?utm_source=mcp · "every circuit court to consider the issue, including the Tenth Circuit, has concluded "that by accepting federal financial assistance as specified in 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-7, states and state ent... |
SOV-31 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | The waiver under § 504 is a condition of the spending contract; acceptance is knowing and voluntary waiver of immunity. | Arbogast v. Kan. Dep't of Labor, 789 F.3d 1174, 1179 (10th Cir. 2015) | US | ✓ | SOV-29, SOV-30 |
SOV-32 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | A state employee may sue a state employer for money damages under § 504 where the state receives federal funds — unlike ADA Title I after Garrett. | Arbogast, 789 F.3d at 1182; Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 | US/CO | ✓ | SOV-16, SOV-30 · xref: WRK-10, EMP-15 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://app.midpage.ai/document/arbogast-v-kansas-department-of-2810152?utm_source=mcp · "every circuit court to consider the issue, including the Tenth Circuit, has concluded "that by accepting federal financial assistance as specified in 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-... |
SOV-33 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | Colorado DOR receives federal financial assistance (e.g., FHWA, IRS cooperative agreements); § 504 waiver is triggered. | 29 U.S.C. § 794(b)(1)(A); see DOR federal grants record | CO | ✓ | SOV-30, SOV-32 · VALc✓ 06-18 |
SOV-34 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | Section 504 covers "otherwise qualified individual with a disability" employed by a federally funded program or activity. | 29 U.S.C. § 794(a) | US | ✓ | SOV-29 · VALc✓ 06-18 · xref: EMP-11 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/794 · "No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States...shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to ... |
SOV-35 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | Section 504 and ADA Title I apply the same substantive standard for employment discrimination — identical proof framework. | 29 U.S.C. § 794(d); Zukle v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 166 F.3d 1041, 1045 n.11 (9th Cir. 1999) (persuasive); Workman v. Frito-Lay (10th Cir.) ? | US | ✓ | SOV-29, SOV-32 · VALc✓ 06-18 · xref: EMP-15, EMP-31 |
SOV-36 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | Under § 504, available remedies are those traditionally available in contract — compensatory damages and equitable relief. | Barnes v. Gorman, 536 U.S. 181, 187–188 (2002) | US | ✓ | SOV-37, SOV-38 · NOTE: emotional-distress damages excluded per SOV-80 (Cummings) · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://app.midpage.ai/document/barnes-v-gorman-121152?utm_source=mcp · "a remedy is "appropriate relief," Franklin, 503 U.S., at 73, only if the funding recipient is on notice that, by accepting federal funding, it... |
SOV-37 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | Punitive damages are not available under § 504 because they are not a traditional contract remedy. | Barnes v. Gorman, 536 U.S. 181, 189–190 (2002) | US | ✓ | SOV-36 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://app.midpage.ai/document/barnes-v-gorman-121152?utm_source=mcp · "Punitive damages are not compensatory, and are therefore not embraced within the rule described in Bell....Because punitive damages may not be awarded in private suits brought under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights ... |
SOV-38 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | Compensatory damages under § 504 require proof of intentional discrimination (deliberate indifference standard). | Barber ex rel. Barber v. Colo. Dep't of Revenue, 562 F.3d 1222, 1228–1229 (10th Cir. 2009) | US/CO | ✓ | SOV-36, SOV-39 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://app.midpage.ai/document/barber-ex-rel-barber-v-172041?utm_source=mcp · "To recover compensatory damages under § 504, a plaintiff must establish that the agency's discrimination was intentional. Powers, 184 F.3d at 1152-53 (indicating that compensatory damages are available... |
SOV-39 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | Deliberate indifference under § 504 = (1) actual knowledge of substantial risk of harm to rights; (2) failure to act. | Barber v. Colo. Dep't of Revenue, 562 F.3d 1222, 1229 (10th Cir. 2009) | US/CO | ✓ | SOV-38 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://app.midpage.ai/document/barber-ex-rel-barber-v-172041?utm_source=mcp · "The test for deliberate indifference in the context of intentional discrimination comprises two prongs: (1) "knowledge that a harm to a federally protected right is substantially likely," and (2) "a failure to... |
SOV-40 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | The 10th Circuit specifically applied Barnes/deliberate-indifference standard to a § 504 claim against Colorado DOR — directly on point. | Barber v. Colo. Dep't of Revenue, 562 F.3d 1222 (10th Cir. 2009) | CO | ✓ | SOV-38, SOV-39 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://app.midpage.ai/document/barber-ex-rel-barber-v-172041?utm_source=mcp · "To recover compensatory damages under § 504, a plaintiff must establish that the agency's discrimination was intentional." · treatment Neutral (344 citations) |
SOV-41 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | Back pay and front pay are equitable/compensatory remedies available under § 504 after successful deliberate-indifference showing. | Barnes, 536 U.S. at 188; 29 U.S.C. § 794a(a)(2) | US | ✓ | SOV-36, SOV-38 · VALc✓ 06-18 · xref: TAX-19 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://app.midpage.ai/document/barnes-v-gorman-121152?utm_source=mcp · "a recipient of federal funds is nevertheless subject to suit for compensatory damages, id., at 76, and injunction, Cannon, supra, at 711-712, forms of relief traditionally availab... |
SOV-42 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | A state (and its arms/agencies) is not a "person" subject to suit for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. | Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 65–66 (1989) | US | ✓ | SOV-43, SOV-44 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://app.midpage.ai/document/will-v-michigan-department-of-112293?utm_source=mcp · "We hold that neither a State nor its officials acting in their official capacities are "persons" under § 1983." · treatment Negative (33111 citations) — 'Negative' on Midpage reflects that subse... |
SOV-43 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | A state official sued in official capacity for damages under § 1983 is not a "person" — same bar as suing the state directly. | Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989) | US | ✓ | SOV-42 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://app.midpage.ai/document/will-v-michigan-department-of-112293?utm_source=mcp · "a suit against a state official in his or her official capacity is not a suit against the official but rather is a suit against the official's office. As such, it is no different from a suit against the... |
SOV-44 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | A state official sued in individual/personal capacity for damages under § 1983 is a "person" — suit may proceed subject to qualified immunity. | Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 27–31 (1991) | US | ✓ | SOV-42, SOV-48 · MP✓ 06-19 (tx: Caution): personal-capacity state officials are § 1983 persons; 11th Am no bar to personal-capacity suits — core holding · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://app.midpage.ai/document/hafer-v-melo-502-u-s-21-1991?utm_source=mcp · "state officers sued in their personal capacity come within the [... |
SOV-45 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | Municipalities and local government units are "persons" under § 1983 — Monell overruled Monroe v. Pape on this point. | Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of N.Y.C., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978) | US | ✓ | SOV-46 · MP✓ 06-19 (opinionId 109881, tx: Neutral): municipalities are § 1983 persons — core holding · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://app.midpage.ai/document/monell-v-department-of-social-services-109881?utm_source=mcp · "local governing bodies...can be sued directly under § 1983 for monetary, declaratory, or injunctive... |
SOV-46 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | A municipality is liable under § 1983 only for a constitutional deprivation caused by an official policy or custom — respondeat superior does not apply. | Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of N.Y.C., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978) | US | ✓ | SOV-45 · MP✓ 06-19 (opinionId 109881, tx: Neutral): no respondeat superior; policy-or-custom required — core holding · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://app.midpage.ai/document/monell-v-department-of-social-services-109881?utm_source=mcp · "a local government may not be sued under § 1983 for an injury inflicted solely by i... |
SOV-47 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | Monell policy-or-custom requirement does not apply to states — states are simply not § 1983 "persons" at all (Will). | Will, 491 U.S. at 70; Monell, 436 U.S. at 690 n.54 | US | ✓ | SOV-42, SOV-45 · MP✓ 06-19: Will ✓ (opinionId confirmed prior run); Monell ✓ (opinionId 109881 06-19) · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://app.midpage.ai/document/will-v-michigan-department-of-112293?utm_source=mcp · "our holding here does not cast any doubt on Monell, and applies only to States or governmental entities tha... |
SOV-48 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | Individual state officers sued under § 1983 in personal capacity are entitled to qualified immunity absent clearly established law. | Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982) | US | ✓ | SOV-44, SOV-49 · MP✓ 06-19 (opinionId 110763, tx: Caution): QI standard — no liability unless conduct violates clearly established statutory/constitutional rights of which reasonable person would have known — core holding · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://app.midpage.ai/document/harlow-v-fitzgerald-110763?utm_source=mcp ... |
SOV-49 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | Qualified immunity two-step (Saucier/Pearce): (1) did officer violate a constitutional right? (2) was the right clearly established at the time? | Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231–232 (2009) | US | ✓ | SOV-48, SOV-50 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://app.midpage.ai/document/pearson-v-callahan-145918?utm_source=mcp · "judges of the district courts and the courts of appeals should be permitted to exercise their sound discretion in deciding which of the two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis should be addressed fir... |
SOV-50 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | Courts may address qualified immunity two-step in either order since Pearson overruled Saucier's mandatory sequence. | Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 242 (2009) | US | ✓ | SOV-49 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://app.midpage.ai/document/pearson-v-callahan-145918?utm_source=mcp · "the Saucier procedure should not be regarded as an inflexible requirement" · treatment Neutral (29600 citations) |
SOV-51 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | "Clearly established" requires the violative nature of the conduct to be clear in the specific context — courts must not define it at a high level of generality. | Mullenix v. Luna, 577 U.S. 7, 12 (2015) | US | ✓ | SOV-49 · MP✓ 06-19 (opinionId 3153112, tx: Neutral): "not to define clearly established law at a high level of generality" — core holding; note: no requirement of a case directly on point but existing precedent must place the question beyond debate |
SOV-52 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | Qualified immunity is a defense on the merits, not a jurisdictional bar — immunity is waivable, unlike Eleventh Amendment immunity. | Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526–527 (1985) | US | ✓ | SOV-48 · MP✓ 06-18 (tx: Caution): QI denial on a legal question is immediately appealable (collateral order) — core holding · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://app.midpage.ai/document/mitchell-v-forsyth-472-u-s-511-1985?utm_source=mcp · "denial of a claim of qualified immunity...is an appealable final decision...notwithsta... |
SOV-53 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | Section 1981a adds compensatory and punitive damages to Title VII/ADA Title I/§ 504 remedies but caps them by employer size. | 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(a)(1)–(a)(3), (b)(3) | US | ✓ | SOV-54, SOV-55 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1981a · "In an action brought by a complaining party under section 706 or 717 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964...the complaining party may recover compensatory and punitive damages as allowed in subsection (b)." · treatment Statute confirm... |
SOV-54 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | For employers with 201–500 employees, combined compensatory + punitive cap under § 1981a(b)(3) = $200,000. | 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3)(C) | US | ✓ | SOV-53 · VALc✓ 06-18 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1981a · "in the case of a respondent who has more than 200 and fewer than 501 employees in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, $200,000" · treatment Statute confirmed via Cornell LII |
SOV-55 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | For employers with more than 500 employees, combined cap = $300,000. | 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3)(D) | US | ✓ | SOV-53 · VALc✓ 06-18 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1981a · "in the case of a respondent who has more than 500 employees in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, $300,000" · treatment Statute confirmed via Cornell LII |
SOV-56 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | The § 1981a cap does not apply to back-pay awards (statutory text); Pollard holds front pay likewise excluded as § 706(g) equitable relief — both are uncapped. | 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(2) (back pay excluded by text); Pollard v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 532 U.S. 843, 849–854 (2001) (front pay) | US | ✓ | SOV-53 · VALc✓ 06-18 · MP✓ 06-19 (opinionId 118441, tx: Neutral): Pollard holds that front pay is not subject to the § 1981a(b)(3) cap; back pay exclusion is statutory (§ 1981a(b)(2)) not Pollard's holding · ✎1 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://app.midpage.ai/document/pollard-v-e-i-du-118441 · "front pay is not an elemen... |
SOV-57 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | Punitive damages under § 1981a are unavailable against government entities (federal, state, local). | 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(1); EEOC v. AIC Sec. Investigations, Ltd., 55 F.3d 1276 (7th Cir. 1995) (persuasive) | US | ✓ | SOV-37, SOV-53 · VALc✓ 06-18 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1981a · "A complaining party may recover punitive damages under this section against a respondent (other than a government, government agency or political subdivision)" · treatment Statutory text — Cornell LII verified |
SOV-58 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | Spending Clause conditions are valid only if they are unambiguous so the state knowingly accepts the terms. | Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 451 U.S. 1, 17 (1981) | US | ✓ | SOV-29, SOV-31 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://app.midpage.ai/document/pennhurst-state-school-and-hospital-110458 · "if Congress intends to impose a condition on the grant of federal moneys, it must do so unambiguously" · treatment Negative (1730 citations) — negative treatment on merits of that case's statutory constr... |
SOV-59 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | Lane v. Pena holds that a waiver of sovereign immunity must be unequivocal in statutory text; it addressed federal (not state) immunity under the Rehabilitation Act and held the federal government's immunity was NOT waived for damages. | Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187, 192–200 (1996) | US | ✓ | SOV-29, SOV-30 · MP✓ 06-18 (tx: Neutral): federal SI waiver must be unequivocal + textual; §2000d-7 waives STATE not federal monetary · ✎2 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://app.midpage.ai/document/lapides-v-board-of-regents-118504 · "the remedies, procedures, and rights set forth in title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 19... |
SOV-60 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | Section 504's anti-discrimination condition applies to "any program or activity" receiving federal financial assistance. | 29 U.S.C. § 794(a); Grove City Coll. v. Bell, 465 U.S. 555 (1984) (pre-CRRA) | US | ✓ | SOV-29 · VALc✓ 06-18 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/794 · "No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States...shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in...any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistan... |
SOV-61 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | Civil Rights Restoration Act (1988) expanded "program or activity" to the entire entity if any part receives federal funds. | 29 U.S.C. § 794(b); Pub. L. 100-259 (1988) | US | ✓ | SOV-60, SOV-33 · VALc✓ 06-18 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/794 · "the term 'program or activity' means all of the operations of—(1)(A) a department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or of a local government" · treatment Statutory — CRRA expansion... |
SOV-62 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | The binding constraint against a state employer is remedy availability, not proof sufficiency — proof without a remedy yields nothing. | Pamela S. Karlan, "Disarming the Private Attorney General," 2003 U. Ill. L. Rev. 183 (persuasive secondary) | US | ~ | SOV-14, SOV-32 · VALc-case 06-18: Secondary Karlan article; framing plausible, not independently verifiable. |
SOV-63 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | ADA Title I is the regulatory standard but provides no damages remedy vs states (Garrett); § 504 is the parallel remedy vehicle post-Arbogast. | Garrett, 531 U.S. 356; Arbogast, 789 F.3d 1174 | US/CO | ✓ | SOV-16, SOV-30 · xref: WRK-10 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://app.midpage.ai/document/lapides-v-board-of-regents-118504 · "an individual may sue a State for money damages under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act...since a State waives its immunity by accepting federal financial assistance" · treatment Composite ✓ — both c... |
SOV-64 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | A plaintiff's strongest posture against a state employer: plead § 504 for damages + ADA Title II (if applicable) + Ex parte Young injunction. | Garrett, 531 U.S. 356; Arbogast v. Kan. Dep't of Labor, 789 F.3d 1174 (10th Cir. 2015); Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 | US | ✓ | SOV-32, SOV-18 · MP✓ 06-18 (tx: Neutral, 61): Arbogast confirms the § 504 prong — accepting federal funds (42 U.S.C. § 2000d-7) waives state immunity for the whole department under § 504. Composite strategy; § 504 damages availability left open in Arbogast — Barnes (SOV-65) supplies the remedy framework · FIXVQ 2026-06... |
SOV-65 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | The "gap" is structural: Congress wrote identical substantive rules for states and private employers but left states' damage exposure solely to the Spending Clause. | Barnes v. Gorman, 536 U.S. 181 (2002); Karlan, supra (secondary) | US | ✓ | SOV-62, SOV-36 · MP✓ 06-18 (tx: Caution, 1137): Barnes confirms Spending-Clause-as-contract — § 504/ADA II remedies are coextensive with Title VI; compensatory damages + injunction available but NO punitive damages (recipient must be on notice). Karlan kept as secondary framing · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://app.midpa... |
SOV-66 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | A state may waive Eleventh Amendment immunity by voluntarily invoking federal court jurisdiction (e.g., removing a case), but the holding is limited to state-law claims where the state had already waived immunity in state court. | Lapides v. Bd. of Regents, 535 U.S. 613, 619–620 (2002) | US | ✓ | SOV-01 · MP✓ 06-18 (tx: Neutral, Lapides): waiver by removal confirmed · ✎1 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://app.midpage.ai/document/lapides-v-board-of-regents-118504 · "The question before us is whether the State's act of removing a lawsuit from state court to federal court waives this immunity. We hold that it does" ·... |
SOV-67 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | Waiver by litigation conduct is narrow; merely appearing or filing does not automatically constitute waiver absent voluntary invocation of federal jurisdiction. | Lapides, 535 U.S. at 617–619 | US | ✓ | SOV-66 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://app.midpage.ai/document/lapides-v-board-of-regents-118504 · "whether a particular set of state laws, rules, or activities amounts to a waiver of the State's Eleventh Amendment immunity is a question of federal law" · treatment Caution (2973 citations) |
SOV-68 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | Colorado has not generally waived sovereign immunity under the CGIA; federal-court suits against the state still face Eleventh Amendment bar. | C.R.S. § 24-10-106 (CGIA — limited waiver for state tort); Eleventh Amendment applies independently | CO | ✓ | SOV-01 · VALc✓ 06-18 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/crs-24-10-106 · "N/A — C.R.S. § 24-10-106 text confirmed via Griess: 'the GIA...does not effect a waiver of the state's constitutional immunity to suit in federal court'" · treatment Neutral (445 citations for Griess) |
SOV-69 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | CGIA waiver is limited to enumerated tortious acts (§ 24-10-106) and does not extend to federal civil-rights claims. | C.R.S. § 24-10-106; Griess v. Colorado, 841 F.2d 1042, 1044–1045 (10th Cir. 1988) | CO | ✓ | SOV-68 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://app.midpage.ai/document/griess-v-state-of-colorado-502789 · "the GIA, particularly Colo.Rev.Stat. Secs. 24-10-104 and 106, does not effect a waiver of the state's constitutional immunity to suit in federal court" · treatment Neutral (445 citations) |
SOV-70 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) provides a state-law parallel track for disability and other discrimination — no immunity bar in state court. | C.R.S. § 24-34-402; CADA does not waive federal immunity, but state court venue avoids Eleventh Amendment | CO | ✓ | SOV-68 · VALc✓ 06-18 · xref: WRK-61, CIV-43 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/images/olls/crs2023-title-24.pdf · "N/A — C.R.S. § 24-34-402 CADA text confirmed as the anti-discrimination employment statute; state-court venue avoids 11th Am bar" · treatment Statutory — VALc✓ 06-18 alrea... |
SOV-71 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | Colorado State Personnel Board has jurisdiction over disciplinary appeals by classified state employees — separate administrative track. | C.R.S. § 24-50-125 (disciplinary actions; appeal to Board); § 24-50-103 | CO | ✓ | SOV-68 · VALc-fix 06-18 · xref: CIV-01, WRK-86, AGT-10 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/images/olls/crs2023-title-24.pdf · "N/A — C.R.S. § 24-50-125 confirmed as State Personnel Board disciplinary appeals provision" · treatment Statutory — VALc-fix 06-18 corrected cite (was § 24-50-1... |
SOV-72 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | A settlement agreement (including of claims against DOR) is a contract enforced under ordinary Colorado contract principles in the forum its venue clause specifies; it is not enforced via C.R.C.P. 12 or the long-arm statute. | Colorado contract law (cf. CIV-53/-54); settlement venue clause | CO | ~ | SOV-68 · VAL-resolved 06-18: removed wrong C.R.C.P.12 / §13-1-124 cites · xref: CIV-53, CIV-56 |
SOV-73 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | ADA Title I employment claims require exhaustion of administrative remedies via timely EEOC charge before filing suit. | 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a) (incorporating 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5) | US | ✓ | SOV-74 · VALc✓ 06-18 · xref: CIV-43 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/12117 · "The powers, remedies, and procedures set forth in sections 2000e-4, 2000e-5, 2000e-6, 2000e-8, and 2000e-9 of this title shall be the powers, remedies, and procedures this subchapter provides" · treatment Sta... |
SOV-74 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | In deferral states (Colorado), the EEOC charge must be filed within 300 days of the alleged unlawful act. | 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1); Colorado is a deferral state (CCRD = FEP agency) | CO | ✓ | SOV-73 · xref: CIV-43, CIV-107 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000e-5 · "a charge under this section shall be filed within one hundred and eighty days after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred...except that in a case of an unlawful employment practice with respect to wh... |
SOV-75 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | Section 504 employment claims are subject to the same exhaustion requirements as ADA Title I when remedies are sought under § 794a. | 29 U.S.C. § 794a(a)(1) (incorporating Title VII procedures for federal employees); for nonfederal employees circuit split ? | US | ✓ | SOV-73 · VALc✓ 06-18 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/794a · "the remedies, procedures, and rights set forth in section 717 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964...shall be available to any employee or applicant for employment aggrieved by the final disposition of such complaint" · treatment... |
SOV-76 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | Filing a dual-filed EEOC/CCRD charge satisfies exhaustion for both federal and state anti-discrimination claims. | EEOC-CCRD work-sharing agreement; 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-8(b); C.R.S. § 24-34-306 | CO | ✓ | SOV-73, SOV-74 · VALc-fix 06-18; EEOC–CCRD work-sharing agreement) · xref: CIV-43, CIV-107 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000e-8 · "N/A — EEOC-CCRD work-sharing agreement confirmed; dual-filed charge satisfies both federal and state exhaustion" · treatment Statutory + administrative... |
SOV-77 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | A knowing, voluntary release of federal civil-rights claims in a settlement agreement extinguishes those claims regardless of sovereign immunity posture. | Town of Newton v. Rumery, 480 U.S. 386, 397 (1987) | US | ✓ | SOV-78 · MP✓ 06-18 (tx: Neutral): release-dismissal not per se invalid; enforce if voluntary/no misconduct/public interest · MP✓ 06-19 (opinionId 111837, tx: Neutral): confirmed — release-dismissal agreements not per se invalid; enforceable if voluntary, no prosecutorial misconduct, public interest not adversely affect... |
SOV-78 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | ADEA: a release of ADEA claims must meet OWBPA standards (21-day review, 7-day revoke, specific ADEA reference) to be valid; a non-compliant release cannot bar an ADEA suit and no tender-back is required. | 29 U.S.C. § 626(f); Oubre v. Entergy Operations, Inc., 522 U.S. 422 (1998) | US | ✓ | SOV-77 · MP✓ 06-18 (tx: Caution, 380): Oubre confirmed. CAPTION CORRECTED "Entergy Operations" (not "Entergy Gulf States"). RECONCILE: OWBPA governs ADEA (age) waivers ONLY — struck the prior "ADA age/disability" conflation; ADA-disability waivers are NOT governed by OWBPA (general knowing-voluntary standard applies) |
SOV-79 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | A release that resolves sovereign-immune claims (e.g., ADA Title I damages vs state) is still enforceable as a contract — the immunity merely precluded the court remedy, not private agreement. | General contract principles; Rumery, 480 U.S. 386 | US | ~ | SOV-77 · VALc-case 06-18: General contract principle plus Rumery; reasonable, no single holding. · xref: CIV-53, CIV-54 · ✎1 |
SOV-80 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | Emotional-distress (mental-anguish) damages are NOT recoverable in a private action to enforce a Spending-Clause anti-discrimination statute — including Rehabilitation Act § 504 and ACA § 1557 (and Title VI/IX by incorporation) — because such damages are not traditionally available for breach of contract. | Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, 596 U.S. 212, 230–231 (2022) | US | ✓ | SOV-36, SOV-63 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://app.midpage.ai/document/cummings-v-premier-rehab-keller--07011ad5-5fed-4eac-8da3-3f4f2e54cf16 · "Emotional distress damages are not recoverable in a private action to enforce either the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or the Affordable Care Act." · treatment Neutral (62 citatio... |
SOV-81 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | A remedy is "appropriate relief" in a private Spending-Clause action only if the funding recipient was on clear notice, by accepting federal funds, of liability of that nature; recipients are deemed on notice only of remedies traditionally available for breach of contract. | Cummings, 596 U.S. at 220–223; Barnes v. Gorman, 536 U.S. 181, 187 (2002) | US | ✓ | SOV-36, SOV-37 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://app.midpage.ai/document/cummings-v-premier-rehab-keller--07011ad5-5fed-4eac-8da3-3f4f2e54cf16 · "A particular remedy is thus 'appropriate relief' in a private Spending Clause action 'only if the funding recipient is on notice that, by accepting federal funding, it exposes ... |
SOV-82 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | Section 504 incorporates the rights and remedies of Title VI (29 U.S.C. § 794a(a)(2)); ACA § 1557 likewise incorporates Title VI (42 U.S.C. § 18116(a)) — so the Spending-Clause contract-remedy limits apply to § 504 and ACA claims alike. | 29 U.S.C. § 794a(a)(2); 42 U.S.C. § 18116(a); Cummings, 596 U.S. at 217–218 | US | ✓ | SOV-29, SOV-36 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://app.midpage.ai/document/cummings-v-premier-rehab-keller--07011ad5-5fed-4eac-8da3-3f4f2e54cf16 · "As to the Rehabilitation Act and the Affordable Care Act...each expressly incorporates the rights and remedies provided under Title VI. 29 U. S. C. § 794a(a)(2); 42 U. S. C. § ... |
SOV-83 | 01_sovereign_immunity_federal_remedies | SOV | To recover compensatory damages under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, a plaintiff must establish the agency's discrimination was intentional; intent is satisfied by deliberate indifference — knowledge that harm to a federally protected right is substantially likely + a failure to act on that likelihood. | Barber ex rel. Barber v. Colorado Dep't of Revenue, 562 F.3d 1222, 1228 (10th Cir. 2009) | CO/US | ✓ | SOV-64, SOV-80, SOV-81, SOV-82 · xref: EMP, WRK (§504 remedy spine) · MP✓ 06-24 (opinionId 172041, tx: Neutral, 344 citing): core holding — § 504 compensatory damages require intentional discrimination, established by deliberate indifference under the Duvall two-prong test; still cited approvingly in Havens, 897 F.3d 1... |
EMP-01 | 02_employment_discrimination_retaliation | EMP | ADA Title I prohibits disability discrimination in hiring, advancement, discharge, compensation, and all terms/conditions of employment. | 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a) | US | ✓ | EMP-13, EMP-38 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/12112 · "No covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and ... |
EMP-02 | 02_employment_discrimination_retaliation | EMP | ADA covers employers with 15 or more employees; the CADA covers employers with 1 or more employees. | 42 U.S.C. § 12111(5); C.R.S. § 24-34-401(3) | US/CO | ✓ | EMP-62 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/12111 · "The term 'employer' means a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has 15 or more employees for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year." |
EMP-03 | 02_employment_discrimination_retaliation | EMP | The ADAAA (2008) expressly rejects the Supreme Court's narrow disability construction in *Sutton* and *Toyota* and mandates broad interpretation. | ADA Amendments Act of 2008, Pub. L. 110-325, § 2(b) | US | ✓ | EMP-04, EMP-05 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-110publ325/pdf/PLAW-110publ325.pdf · "The purposes of this Act are ... to reject the requirement enunciated by the Supreme Court in Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999) and Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Will... |
EMP-04 | 02_employment_discrimination_retaliation | EMP | Post-ADAAA, "disability" means: (A) physical/mental impairment substantially limiting a major life activity; (B) record of such; or (C) being regarded as having such. | 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1) | US | ✓ | EMP-05, EMP-06 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/12102 · "a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual; a record of such an impairment; or being regarded as having such an impairment" |
EMP-05 | 02_employment_discrimination_retaliation | EMP | "Substantially limits" is construed broadly; an impairment need not prevent or severely restrict a major life activity. | 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(i)–(ii) | US | ✓ | EMP-04 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/1630.2 · "The term 'substantially limits' shall be construed broadly in favor of expansive coverage, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of the ADA. An impairment need not prevent, or significantly or severely restrict, the individual from ... |
EMP-06 | 02_employment_discrimination_retaliation | EMP | Mitigating measures (medication, assistive devices, learned behavioral modifications) are NOT considered when assessing whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity. | 42 U.S.C. § 12102(4)(E)(i); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(vi) | US | ✓ | EMP-05 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/12102 · "The determination of whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity shall be made without regard to the ameliorative effects of mitigating measures such as medication; medical supplies, equipment, or appliances; ... lea... |
EMP-07 | 02_employment_discrimination_retaliation | EMP | Exception: ordinary eyeglasses and contact lenses ARE considered as mitigating measures. | 42 U.S.C. § 12102(4)(E)(ii) | US | ✓ | EMP-06 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/12102 · "The ameliorative effects of the mitigating measures of ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses shall be considered in determining whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity." |
EMP-08 | 02_employment_discrimination_retaliation | EMP | "Major life activities" include caring for oneself, sleeping, concentrating, communicating, and the operation of major bodily functions. | 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2) | US | ✓ | EMP-05 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/12102 · "major life activities include, but are not limited to, caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, ... |
EMP-09 | 02_employment_discrimination_retaliation | EMP | "Regarded as" coverage does not require proof that the perceived impairment substantially limits a major life activity. | 42 U.S.C. § 12102(3)(A) | US | ✓ | EMP-04 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/12102 · "An individual meets the requirement of 'being regarded as having such an impairment' if the individual establishes that he or she has been subjected to an action prohibited under this chapter because of an actual or perceived physical or... |
EMP-10 | 02_employment_discrimination_retaliation | EMP | "Regarded as" coverage does NOT entitle the employee to reasonable accommodation. | 42 U.S.C. § 12201(h); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.9(e) | US | ✓ | EMP-04, EMP-21 · VALc✓ 06-18 · xref: WRK-10 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/12201 · "A covered entity under subchapter I, a public entity under subchapter II, and any person who operates a place of public accommodation under subchapter III, need not provide a reasonable accommodation ... |
EMP-11 | 02_employment_discrimination_retaliation | EMP | A "qualified individual" can perform the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodation. | 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8) | US | ✓ | EMP-12, EMP-13 · xref: WRK-12, SOV-34 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/12111 · "The term 'qualified individual' means an individual who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires." |
EMP-12 | 02_employment_discrimination_retaliation | EMP | "Essential functions" are the fundamental duties of the position; evidence of essential functions includes the employer's own written job description. | 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1)–(3) | US | ✓ | EMP-11 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/1630.2 · "A job function may be considered essential for any of several reasons, including, but not limited to, the following: ... The function may be essential because the reason the position exists is to perform that function. ... The function may... |
EMP-13 | 02_employment_discrimination_retaliation | EMP | The plaintiff bears the burden of proving she is a "qualified individual." | *Exby-Stolley v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs*, 979 F.3d 784, 790 (10th Cir. 2020) (en banc) | US/10th | ✓ | EMP-11 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://app.midpage.ai/document/exby-stolley-v-board-of-4581355 · "under the 'modified McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework' governing failure-to-accommodate claims, a plaintiff may establish a prima facie case by demonstrating 'that (1) [he] is disabled; (2) [he] is otherwise qual... |
EMP-14 | 02_employment_discrimination_retaliation | EMP | Reasonable accommodation includes job restructuring, modified schedules, acquisition of equipment, reassignment, and other similar modifications. | 42 U.S.C. § 12111(9) | US | ✓ | EMP-15, EMP-20 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/12111 · "job restructuring, part-time or modified work schedules, reassignment to a vacant position, acquisition or modification of equipment or devices, appropriate adjustment or modifications of examinations, training materials or polic... |
EMP-15 | 02_employment_discrimination_retaliation | EMP | An employer discriminates by failing to make a reasonable accommodation for a known physical or mental limitation unless it would impose undue hardship. | 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A) | US | ✓ | EMP-14, EMP-21 · xref: WRK-11, SOV-35 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/12112 · "not making reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability who is an applicant or employee, unless such covered entity can demons... |
EMP-16 | 02_employment_discrimination_retaliation | EMP | The interactive process is an informal, good-faith dialogue between employer and employee to identify a reasonable accommodation. | 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3); *EEOC v. C.R. England, Inc.*, 644 F.3d 1028, 1049 (10th Cir. 2011) | US/10th | ✓ | EMP-17 · FIXVQ 2026-06-23 src: https://app.midpage.ai/document/equal-employment-opportunity-commission-v-215941 · "the interactive process must ordinarily begin with the employee providing notice to the employer of the employee's disability and any resulting limitations" · treatment Caution |
EMP-17 | 02_employment_discrimination_retaliation | EMP | An employer who fails to engage in the interactive process in good faith may be held liable for failure to accommodate even if an accommodation was theoretically unavailable. | *EEOC v. C.R. England, Inc.*, 644 F.3d 1028, 1050 (10th Cir. 2011) | US/10th | ✓ | EMP-16 · MP✓ 06-18 (tx: Caution): ADA interactive process triggered by an adequate accommodation request (notice); no magic words |
End of preview.
Colorado + US Atomized Legal Knowledge Corpus
▶ New here? Read
USER_GUIDE.md— step-by-step on driving this repo with Claude Opus (Claude Code = the intended way; honest limits of a plain chatbot). A printable, formattedUSER_GUIDE.pdfedition (navy/gold theme, generated from the guide) is included.
A citation-tagged, freshness-graded knowledge base of ~2,600 atomized legal rules ("atoms") spanning 54 domains of Colorado and U.S. federal law — plus the methodology for building your own.
Each row is one legal proposition, pinpoint-cited to its primary authority (statute / regulation / rule / case), jurisdiction-tagged, status-graded for freshness, and cross-referenced to related rules. The corpus is project-agnostic: it carries rules of law only — no personal, client, or case facts.
⚖️ Research & reference material only — NOT legal advice. Nothing here creates an attorney–client relationship. Verify every rule against its cited primary source before relying on it. See
DISCLAIMER.md.🏷️ Credits & provenance: every source, verification method, model, and software library behind this corpus is credited in
CREDITS.md.
What's in here
| Atoms | 2,612 atomic rules (exact, per atoms.jsonl) |
| Domains | 54 markdown files (01–54) |
| Coverage | Colorado-primary + U.S. federal; statewide CRS breadth + local/district layer |
| Format | Plain markdown tables — git-diffable, grep-able, RAG-ready |
| Index | 00_MATRIX_INDEX.md — domains, prefixes, counts, cross-domain spine, verify-before-relying roundup |
| Status mix | 2,486 ✓ verified · 112 ~ confirm-pinpoint · 14 ? verify (normalized from atoms.jsonl; sums to 2,612) |
| Flat export | atoms.jsonl — one JSON record per atom (regenerate with tools/atoms_to_jsonl.py) |
| Tools | tools/ — three dependency-free Python 3 scripts: atoms_to_jsonl.py (flat-export builder) · readability_grade.py (Flesch–Kincaid / SMOG / ARI reading-level meter over atom prose) · reader_adaptive_render.py (grade-targeting render control loop, fidelity-guarded — ships a no-op render_fn; the real rendering model is injected by the user). Plus tools/3b_engine/ — the full plug-and-play maintenance engine (reputable-source guardrail, halu-guard ledger, local source-verifier, link dedup, re-verify worklist, gap-closure tracker, verdict-applier) with an auto-detecting path shim so it runs against your pulled copy with zero edits. See tools/3b_engine/README.md. |
| Form-drafting module (FD3b) | fd3b/ — the companion Colorado court-form & filing-drafting knowledge base: JDF/agency form catalog, caption/format rules, filing requirements/deadlines, pleading-anatomy methodology, CO-compatible templates, and a universal, source-faithful form builder (fd3b/builders/build_form.py): show it any official blank form → a 1:1 faithful copy (--mode blank|fill|flat), via a reusable capture format (fd3b/form_specs/) + field maps, with official blanks hash-verified + auto-fetched on demand and intended-use guards that refuse anything that isn't a faithful, authorized copy. Agnostic — matter facts are injected from your own data JSON at generation. See fd3b/00_FD3B_INDEX.md. |
| Bundled sources | sources/ — the public primary documents the atoms cite (CO labor statutes/rules/forms, the public-sector CBA, USMC/DoD legal-services manuals, and the full verbatim text of the U.S. and Colorado Constitutions in sources/constitutions/). See sources/SOURCES_NOTICE.md — these third-party public docs keep their own (public-domain / public-record) status; the CC BY-SA license covers only our compilation. |
Domain map (prefix → subject)
SOV sovereign immunity / §1983 · EMP employment discrimination & retaliation · PDQ CO public-sector labor (Partnership Act) · CIV CO civil procedure & admin review · TAX settlement & tax · PROB probate/conservatorship · BIZ business entities · WAT water rights · LUC land use & zoning · FIN ag/finance programs · EST trusts & estates · OPS business operations & HR · LOC local + district layer · plus a statewide CRS breadth build (CRM CPR FAM PRP COM BCO INS PRO UTL REG ENV BHL HUM CHL HCF OGM WLF AGR WTR LGV GOV ELC TXN MVT TRT CSA EDU HED LAB CON), deep labor/employment (WRK PSL LBC), criminal/firearms/public-safety (CJL), consumer/housing/insurance/TABOR (CHC), and two NOT-law reference domains kept behind a firewall: AGT (contracts/agreements) and MLA (military administrative regulations).
The full list with row counts is in
00_MATRIX_INDEX.md.
Atom schema
Every domain file is a markdown table with one rule per row:
| ID | Atomic rule (one proposition) | Authority + pinpoint | Juris | Status | Source + verbatim quote / See also |
- ID — stable internal handle (
SOV-14,EMP-94, …). Use it to find and re-verify a rule and to follow cross-references. It is not a citation — cite the underlying authority, not the atom. - Juris —
US(federal) orCO(Colorado). - Status (the freshness grade):
✓verified against primary text / citator~settled black-letter — confirm the pinpoint?verify before relying
- Source column — the actual authority the atom traces to: official URL (
leg.colorado.gov/colorado.public.law/ Cornell LII / eCFR / CCR) + a verbatim quote, and/or a cross-reference.
Status is a freshness grade, not a guarantee. Case-law atoms are the most perishable — citator treatment can change even on a ✓ row. Always confirm ~/? rows (and any case-law atom) against the cited primary text before any outward use.
How to use it
As a reference / research substrate
- Grep the folder for a term, or jump to a domain file by prefix via
00_MATRIX_INDEX.md. - Read the rule + its pinpoint cite. Open the cited primary source and confirm it — especially
~/?rows. - Cite the primary authority (statute section / case reporter cite), never "the corpus" or the atom ID.
As data (RAG / fine-tuning / retrieval)
- The tables parse trivially to rows. Suggested record:
{id, rule, authority, juris, status, source}. - Filter on
status == "✓"for the highest-confidence subset; treat~/?as leads to verify. - Keep the disclaimer and the "verify against primary source" discipline downstream — these are summaries of law, not the law.
To build your own record — see METHODOLOGY.md. The reusable build prompts are in methodology/ and the per-role routing notes are in persona_context/.
Cross-reference & logic layer
The domain files hold the rules; the analytical layer tells you how to assemble them for a given matter:
LOGIC_MATRICES.md— a "logic matrix" per matter type (employee-vs-state, public-sector labor/union, elder financial protection, probate/conservatorship, land development, water-rights adjudication, business formation, trusts/estate planning, settlement taxation, consumer/housing, insurance bad faith, criminal defense + firearms, CORA/open-meetings, civil litigation procedure & evidence, military justice (UCMJ)/service-member admin, and constitutional challenge). Each block maps the issue to governing domains, entry atoms, elements/tests, cross-checks, deadlines, and remedies — all by real atom ID.reference/CONCEPT_INDEX.md— reverse lookup from a concept (e.g. limitations_deadline, damages, reasonable_accommodation) to every atom ID tagged with it.reference/DOMAIN_ADJACENCY.md— the domain adjacency matrix (which domains share the most concepts) plus the cross-domain doctrine spines that the logic matrices are built on.reference/ATOM_DIRECTORY.md— the flat ID-to-rule directory.
Start at LOGIC_MATRICES.md for "how do I analyze this kind of matter," and use the two
reference/ indexes to pivot by concept or by domain. (Atom IDs are handles for finding and
re-verifying a rule — still cite the underlying primary authority.)
Provenance & honesty notes
- Built by an AI tool (Claude) at a layperson's direction, then validated in multiple passes: per-domain primary-source re-fetch + halu-guard + reconcile-to-truth. Catches and corrections are logged inline in each file's footer (e.g. mis-cited sections corrected in place, citator-Caution cases scoped to their narrow holding).
- Self-reported counts drift across the internal logs (the corpus grew in stages). Treat totals as approximate (~2,400) and trust each file's own footer.
- This is a derived/secondary work: the underlying statutes, regulations, and judicial opinions are public domain. The selection, atomization, annotation, and grading are the contributed work, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0 (see
LICENSE). - No personal or case data. This release was scrubbed of all individual names, client facts, settlement figures, docket numbers, and private source documents.
License
CC BY-SA 4.0 (attribution + share-alike) for the compilation and annotations — reuse freely, but keep derivatives of this compilation under the same open license. Underlying primary law is public domain; bundled sources/ keep their own public status. See LICENSE.
Disclaimer
Not legal advice; no attorney–client relationship. Law changes and varies by jurisdiction. Verify against primary sources and consult a licensed attorney for advice. See DISCLAIMER.md.
- Downloads last month
- 383