Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844 (1980)

KeyCite Red Flag - Severe Negative Treatment

Overruled by ASHELMAN V. POPE, 9th Cir.(Ariz.), July 8, 1986

633 F.2d 844United States Court of Appeals,

Ninth Circuit.

Marcus W. RANKIN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.Wayne HOWARD and Jane Doe

Howard, his wife; Joseph Alexander, Sr. and Esther Alexander, his wife et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 78-3216. | Argued Sept. 8, 1980. | Submitted Sept. 22, 1980.

| Decided Dec. 5, 1980.

Son, whose parents instituted temporary guardianship proceedings for purpose of having him “deprogrammed” from the Unification Church, sued his parents, Kansas judge who issued ex parte guardianship papers and others alleging a conspiracy to deprive him of his civil rights, as well as commission of common-law torts. The United States District Court for the District of Arizona, C. A. Muecke, Chief Judge, 457 F.Supp. 70, rendered summary judgment for the state judge and rendered partial summary judgment for two other defendants, and son appealed. The Court of Appeals, Eugene A. Wright, Circuit Judge, held that: (1) if the judge had agreed in advance to rule favorably on the guardianship petition, such an agreement would not be a judicial act for which the judge would be cloaked with judicial

immunity; (2) a judge who acts in the clear and complete absence of personal jurisdiction loses his judicial immunity; (3) if the state judge knew the jurisdictional allegations to be fraudulent or that a valid Kansas statute expressly foreclosed personal jurisdiction in ex parte proceedings, the judge would have acted in clear and complete absence of personal jurisdiction; (4) even if the judge was immune such did not automatically immunize alleged coconspirators; and (5) material fact issues existed, precluding summary judgment.

Reversed and remanded.

West Headnotes (15)

[1] Federal CourtsMultiple claims or parties

170BFederal Courts170BVIIICourts of Appeals170BVIII(C)Decisions Reviewable170BVIII(C)2Finality of Determination170Bk598Determination of Controversy as Affecting Finality170Bk599Multiple claims or parties

Appeal from partial summary judgment for two defendants on claim under one civil rights statute was not interlocutory notwithstanding that claims under two other statutes and state law tort claims remained to be adjudicated, where district court made the required determinations that there was no just reason for delay in entry of final judgment on the claims involved and directed entry of such

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844 (1980)

and in doing so did not abuse its discretion. 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986; Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. Rule 54(b), 28 U.S.C.A.

1 Cases that cite this headnote

[2] JudgesLiabilities for official acts

227Judges227IIIRights, Powers, Duties, and Liabilities227k36Liabilities for official acts

Purpose of judicial immunity is to protect principled and fearless decision–making.

3 Cases that cite this headnote

[3] JudgesLiabilities for official acts

227Judges227IIIRights, Powers, Duties, and Liabilities227k36Liabilities for official acts

A judge’s private, prior agreement to decide in favor of one party is not a “judicial act” for purpose of judicial immunity.

8 Cases that cite this headnote

[4] JudgesLiabilities for official acts

227Judges227IIIRights, Powers, Duties, and Liabilities227k36Liabilities for official acts

If state judge had agreed in advance to rule favorably on petition for guardianship of son, a church member sought to be “deprogrammed,” and if any such agreement manifested judge’s participation in alleged conspiracy to deprive son of his civil rights, proof of the agreement could form the basis of liability whether or not the judge was immune from liability for subsequent judicial acts. 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986.

2 Cases that cite this headnote

[5] CourtsJurisdiction of Cause of Action

CourtsJurisdiction of the Person in

General

106Courts106INature, Extent, and Exercise of Jurisdiction in General106I(A)In General106k3Jurisdiction of Cause of Action106k4In general106Courts106INature, Extent, and Exercise of Jurisdiction in General106I(A)In General106k10Jurisdiction of the Person in General106k11In general

Requirements of subject matter and personal jurisdiction are conjunctional, as both must be met before a court has authority to

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844 (1980)

adjudicate rights of parties to a dispute.

1 Cases that cite this headnote

[6] CourtsScope and Extent of Jurisdiction in

General

106Courts106INature, Extent, and Exercise of Jurisdiction in General106I(A)In General106k26Scope and Extent of Jurisdiction in General106k26(1)In general(Formerly 106k11)

If a court lacks jurisdiction over a party, then it lacks all jurisdiction to adjudicate the party’s rights, whether or not the subject matter is properly before it.

2 Cases that cite this headnote

[7] JudgesLiabilities for official acts

227Judges227IIIRights, Powers, Duties, and Liabilities227k36Liabilities for official acts

A judge who acts in the clear and complete absence of personal jurisdiction loses his judicial immunity.

3 Cases that cite this headnote

[8] JudgesLiabilities for official acts

227Judges227IIIRights, Powers, Duties, and Liabilities227k36Liabilities for official acts

Although a court may lack personal jurisdiction such of itself is not sufficient to strip the judge of his cloak of judicial immunity; since jurisdictional issues are often difficult to resolve, judges are entitled to decide such issues without fear of reprisal should they exceed the precise limits of their authority.

1 Cases that cite this headnote

[9] JudgesLiabilities for official acts

227Judges227IIIRights, Powers, Duties, and Liabilities227k36Liabilities for official acts

Judges of courts of general jurisdiction are not liable for judicial acts merely in excess of their jurisdiction, even when the acts are alleged to have been done maliciously or corruptly.

[10] JudgesLiabilities for official acts

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844 (1980)

227Judges227IIIRights, Powers, Duties, and Liabilities227k36Liabilities for official acts

When a judge knows that he lacks jurisdiction, or acts in the face of clearly valid statutes or case law expressly depriving him of jurisdiction, judicial immunity is lost.

9 Cases that cite this headnote

[11] Civil RightsJudges, courts, and judicial

officers

78Civil Rights78IIIFederal Remedies in General78k1372Privilege or Immunity;  Good Faith and Probable Cause78k1376Government Agencies and Officers78k1376(8)Judges, courts, and judicial officers(Formerly 78k214(8), 78k13.8(5))

If Kansas judge who issued ex parte guardianship papers knew the jurisdictional allegations to be fraudulent or that valid Kansas statutes expressly foreclosed personal jurisdiction over proposed ward in ex parte proceeding for temporary guardianship, the judge would have acted in clear and complete absence of personal jurisdiction and he would have been stripped of cloak of judicial immunity, and if his acts were part of a conspiracy he would be held properly liable under civil rights acts for consequences thereof. 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986;

Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. Rule 54(b), 28 U.S.C.A.; K.S.A. 59–3012, 59–3013; U.S.C.A.Const. Amends. 5, 14.

20 Cases that cite this headnote

[12] Federal Civil ProcedureCivil rights cases in general

170AFederal Civil Procedure170AXVIIJudgment170AXVII(C)Summary Judgment170AXVII(C)2Particular Cases170Ak2491.5Civil rights cases in general

Material fact issues existed whether Kansas probate judge had agreed in advance to rule favorably on parents’ petition for temporary guardianship of son and/or whether in issuing ex parte orders the judge acted in clear and complete absence of personal jurisdiction, so as to remove cloak of judicial immunity, precluding summary judgment in civil rights action. 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986; K.S.A. 59–3005, 59–3012, 59–3013; Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. Rule 56(c), 28 U.S.C.A.

4 Cases that cite this headnote

[13] ConspiracyPersons Liable

91Conspiracy91IICriminal Responsibility91II(A)Offenses

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844 (1980)

91k39Persons Liable91k40In general

An immune judge’s private coconspirators do not enjoy derivative immunity. 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.

[14] Civil RightsAttorneys, jurors, and witnesses;  

public defendersCivil Rights

Judges, courts, and judicial officers

78Civil Rights78IIIFederal Remedies in General78k1372Privilege or Immunity;  Good Faith and Probable Cause78k1375Attorneys, jurors, and witnesses;  public defenders(Formerly 78k213, 78k13.8(1))78Civil Rights78IIIFederal Remedies in General78k1372Privilege or Immunity;  Good Faith and Probable Cause78k1376Government Agencies and Officers78k1376(8)Judges, courts, and judicial officers(Formerly 78k214(8), 78k13.8(5))

Even if state judge who issued guardianship papers ex parte were immune from Civil Rights Act liability to the ward, the attorney who instituted the guardianship proceedings and individual who allegedly participated in “deprogramming” of the ward, who was taken into custody pursuant to guardianship papers and confined in motel room, were not thereby immune; however, ward was required to prove a conspiracy

involving state action to deprive him of rights secured by the Constitution or federal law and it was not sufficient that the nonjurist defendants carried out a judicial order. 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986; K.S.A. 59–3005, 59–3012, 59–3013.

7 Cases that cite this headnote

[15] Federal Civil ProcedureCivil rights cases in general

170AFederal Civil Procedure170AXVIIJudgment170AXVII(C)Summary Judgment170AXVII(C)2Particular Cases170Ak2491.5Civil rights cases in general

Material fact issues existed whether attorney who instituted guardianship proceeding and individual who allegedly participated in “deprogramming” of the ward, who was confined pursuant to the ex parte guardianship papers, induced the judge to abandon his impartiality and fraudulently alleged ward’s residence to create a semblance of jurisdiction, precluding summary judgment on civil rights claims. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. Rule 56(c), 28 U.S.C.A.; 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.

1 Cases that cite this headnote

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844 (1980)

Attorneys and Law Firms

*845 Peter D. Baird, Lewis & Roca, Phoenix, Ariz., for plaintiff-appellant.

Albert R. Vermeire, Phoenix, Ariz., Gilmore F. Diekmann, Jr., Bronson, Bronson & McKinnon, San Francisco, Cal., on brief; Bruce E. Miller, Deputy Atty. Gen., Topeka, Kan., for defendants-appellees.

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.*846 Before WRIGHT and FERGUSON, Circuit Judges, and BROWN, Senior District Judge.*

Opinion

EUGENE A. WRIGHT, Circuit Judge:

The parents of 22 year old Marcus Rankin, a member of the Unification Church, sought to have him “deprogrammed.”1 They retained Howard, an Arizona lawyer, to institute a guardianship proceeding.

Howard filed a petition for guardianship with Judge Zeller, a nonlawyer probate judge in Pottawatomie County, Kansas. The petition falsely recited that Rankin was a resident of Pottawatomie County. Actually, he lived in Missouri.

On Christmas 1976, while Rankin was at home in Missouri, guardianship papers were issued ex parte by the Kansas judge. Young Rankin was then flown to Kansas in his father’s plane for what he thought would be a social visit.

On arrival he was taken into custody and flown to Arizona. There he was confined to a motel room for “deprogramming,” in which Trauscht, another lawyer, allegedly participated. He escaped after nine days.

Rankin sued his parents,2 Judge Zeller, Howard, Trauscht, and others, alleging a conspiracy to deprive him of civil rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. ss 1983, 1985, and 1986 and common-law torts.He charged that the judge privately agreed with the others before the petition was filed to order the guardianship, knew that the jurisdictional allegations were fraudulent, and violated a jurisdictional requirement of the Kansas guardianship statute as well as the United States Constitution by failing to give the proposed ward notice or an opportunity to be heard. See K.S.A. ss 59-3012 to -3013 (prior to 1977 amendments); In re Wellman, 3 Kan.App. 100, 45 P. 726, 727 (1896).3The district court granted summary judgment for Judge Zeller on all claims, finding him absolutely immune. Rankin v. Howard , 457 F.Supp. 70, 73 (D.Ariz.1978) . The court granted partial summary judgment for Howard and Trauscht on the s 1983 claim. Id. at 74.4

Rankin contends that, because Judge Zeller acted nonjudicially and in the clear absence of personal jurisdiction, he lost his judicial immunity.5 Rankin also asserts error in the holding that the other defendants were insulated from s 1983 liability by derivative immunity.[1] We invited the parties to submit supplemental briefs on the threshold question whether this appeal was interlocutory in view of the fact that the

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844 (1980)

plaintiff’s claims under ss 1985 and 1986 and under state tort law remain to be adjudicated. We now are satisfied that the district court made the required determination in entering final judgments pursuant to Federal *847 Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) and that it did not abuse its discretion in doing so.6

I.

We consider first the contention that Judge Zeller lost his immunity by acting nonjudicially and in the clear absence of personal jurisdiction.In Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 231 (1978), the Supreme Court declared that state judges are immune from s 1983 liability for “judicial” acts not taken “in the ‘clear absence of all jurisdiction.’ ” Id. at 357, 98 S.Ct. at 1105 (quoting Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 335, 351, 20 L.Ed. 646 (1872)). A state judge who ordered the sterilization of a minor at her mother’s request was held immune because the order was a judicial act and no state law clearly excluded petitions for sterilization from the court’s subject matter jurisdiction. 435 U.S. at 357, 360, 98 S.Ct. at 1105, 1106. 7

A. The Nonjudicial AgreementThe Stump Court identified two specific factors to be considered in determining whether an act is “judicial”: “the nature of the act itself, i. e., whether it is a function normally performed by a judge, and ... the expectations of the parties, i. e., whether they dealt with the judge in his judicial

capacity.” 435 U.S. at 362, 98 S.Ct. at 1107. We also consider the underlying purpose of judicial immunity. Gregory v. Thompson, 500 F . 2d 59, 63 (9th Cir. 1974) .8

[2] Although a party conniving with a judge to predetermine the outcome of a judicial proceeding may deal with him in his “judicial capacity,” the other party’s expectation, i. e., judicial impartiality, is actively frustrated by the scheme. In any event, the agreement is not “a function normally performed by a judge.” It is the antithesis of the “principled and fearless decision-making” that judicial immunity exists to protect. See Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554, 87 S.Ct. 1213, 1217, 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967); Gregory v. Thompson, 500 F . 2d at 63 .

[3] [4] Rankin alleged that Judge Zeller agreed in advance with the others to rule favorably on the petition. We conclude that a judge’s private, prior agreement to decide in favor of one party is not a judicial act. See also Lopez v. Vanderwater, 620 F . 2d 1229, 1235-37 (7th Cir. 1980 ) (judge not immune for “prosecutorial” acts prior to biased decision).9 If the alleged agreement *848 manifests Judge Zeller’s participation in a conspiracy, then proof of the agreement could form the basis of liability whether or not he is immune from liability for subsequent judicial acts.

B. The Clear Absence of Personal Jurisdiction

Although the Supreme Court acknowledged in Stump v. Sparkman that Judge Stump may have committed “grave procedural

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844 (1980)

errors,” 435 U.S. at 359, 98 S.Ct. at 1106, it did not explicitly consider whether he acted in the clear absence of personal jurisdiction or whether such action would be protected by judicial immunity.10 The question appears to be one of first impression.The district court here assumed that a court arguably having subject matter jurisdiction does not act in the “clear absence of all jurisdiction.” When the Supreme Court first formulated the “clear absence” standard, however, it stated that the principle of immunity applied when there was “jurisdiction of both subject and person.” Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 335, 352 (1872), 20 L.Ed. 646. 11

[5] An absence of personal jurisdiction may be said to destroy “all jurisdiction” because the requirements of subject matter and personal jurisdiction are conjunctional.12 Both must be met before a court has authority to adjudicate the rights of parties to a dispute.[6] If a court lacks jurisdiction over a party, then it lacks “all jurisdiction” to adjudicate that party’s rights, whether or not the subject matter is properly before it. See, e. g., Kulko v. Superior Court, 436 U.S. 84, 91, 98 S.Ct. 1690, 1696, 56 L.Ed.2d 132 (1978) (“(i)t has long been the rule that a valid judgment imposing a personal obligation or duty in favor of the plaintiff may be *849 entered only by a court having jurisdiction over the person of the defendant”) (citations omitted); In re Wellman, 3 Kan.App. 100, 45 P. 726, 727 (1896) (ex parte guardianship proceeding would be a “flagrant violation” of due process, rendering any order null and void).13

[7] Because the limits of personal

jurisdiction constrain judicial authority, acts taken in the absence of personal jurisdiction do not fall within the scope of legitimate decisionmaking that judicial immunity is designed to protect. See Gregory v. Thompson, 500 F . 2d at 63. We conclude that a judge who acts in the clear and complete absence of personal jurisdiction loses his judicial immunity.[8] [9] It is not sufficient that the court in fact lacked jurisdiction. Because jurisdictional issues are often difficult to resolve, judges are entitled to decide such issues without fear of reprisal should they exceed the precise limits of their authority. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. at 356, 98 S.Ct. at 1104. Judges of courts of general jurisdiction are not liable for judicial acts merely “in excess of their jurisdiction,” even when the acts “are alleged to have been done maliciously or corruptly.” Id. (quoting Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) at 347).[10] But when a judge knows that he lacks jurisdiction, or acts in the face of clearly valid statutes or case law expressly depriving him of jurisdiction, judicial immunity is lost. See Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) at 351 (“when the want of jurisdiction is known to the judge, no excuse is permissible”); Turner v. Raynes, 611 F . 2d 92, 95 (5th Cir. 1980 ) (Stump is consistent with the view that “a clearly inordinate exercise of unconferred jurisdiction by a judge-one so crass as to establish that he embarked on it either knowingly or recklessly-subjects him to personal liability”).14

[11] If, as alleged, Judge Zeller knew the jurisdictional allegations to be fraudulent, or if valid Kansas statutes expressly foreclosed

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844 (1980)

personal jurisdiction over a proposed ward in ex parte proceedings for temporary guardianship, then the judge acted in the clear and complete absence of personal jurisdiction. If his acts were part of a conspiracy, he is properly held responsible for the consequences.

C. The Need for Further Inquiry[12] Rankin’s allegations, which draw some support from affidavits and answers to interrogatories assembled during discovery proceedings, raise material issues of fact that were not fully considered by the district court. Summary judgment was inappropriate.15

*850 Further discovery may resolve the issues, and trial is not necessarily required. But the district court must consider the possibility that Judge Zeller lost his immunity by participating in a conspiracy to violate Rankin’s civil rights through a nonjudicial agreement or a judicial act in the clear and complete absence of personal jurisdiction.

The judgment of the district court dismissing all claims against Judge Zeller is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

II.

The s 1983 action against Howard and Trauscht was dismissed because of Judge Zeller’s supposed immunity. The district court relied on our decision in Sykes v. California, 497 F . 2d 197 (9th Cir. 1974) , for the proposition that an immune state

official’s coconspirators are derivatively immune because they do not act under color of state law. Id. at 202.

In later cases, we acknowledged that the “status of derivative immunity (was) unclear in this circuit.” Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F . 2d 1089, 1092 n.2 (9th Cir. 1980 ) (per curiam) (citing Briley v. California, 564 F . 2d 849, 858 n. 10 (9th Cir. 1977)).

[13] The Supreme Court resolved the issue in Dennis v. Sparks, —-U.S. ——, 101 S.Ct. 183, 66 L.Ed.2d 185 ( 1980 ) . The Court held that an immune judge’s private coconspirators do not enjoy derivative immunity. at ——, 101 S.Ct. at 186.

The Court observed that “(i)mmunity does not change the character of the judge’s action or that of his co-conspirators. Indeed, his immunity is dependent on the challenged conduct being an official act within his statutory jurisdiction, broadly construed.” Id. at ——, 101 S.Ct. at 186 (footnote and citations omitted).

[14] It follows that “(p)rivate parties who corruptly conspire with a judge in connection with such conduct are ... acting under color of state law within the meaning of s 1983.” Id. at ——, 101 S.Ct. at 187. Even if further proceedings establish Judge Zeller’s immunity, Howard and Trauscht thus may be held liable.

In any event, Rankin must prove that there was a conspiracy involving state action to deprive him of rights secured by the Constitution or federal laws. Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F . 2d at 1092 .

It is not sufficient that the defendants carried © 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844 (1980)

out a judicial order. See Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. at ——, 101 S.Ct. at 186. Rankin must demonstrate that they “reached an understanding” with Judge Zeller to violate Rankin’s rights under color of the guardianship proceeding. Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 152, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 1605, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970); see Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. at ——, 101 S.Ct. at 186.

[15] He has made some showing that they may have induced the judge to abandon his impartiality and fraudulently alleged Rankin’s residence in Kansas to create a semblance of jurisdiction. Because these allegations and the supporting materials16 raise material issues of fact, we reverse and remand the partial summary judgment that dismissed the s 1983 claim against Howard and Trauscht.

Reversed and remanded.

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844 (1980)

Footnotes* Of the District of Kansas.

1 Most basic facts are not in dispute. Discovery yielded some conflicting accounts. Whether Judge Zeller agreed in advance to rule favorably on the petition and whether he knew that Rankin was not residing or present in Kansas is unclear.

In reviewing summary judgments against Rankin, we view the materials “in the light most favorable” to him. Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 1608, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970).

2 Rankin has now settled with his parents.

3 The Wellman court stated: “Without (notice and a hearing), no citizen would be safe from the machinations of secret tribunals, and the most sane members of the community might be adjudged insane and landed in the madhouse.” 45 P. at 727.

4 After the district court granted the summary judgments, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which for the first time invoked the court’s diversity jurisdiction to present claims based entirely on Kansas law. We do not consider questions raised by the amended complaint.

5 Rankin also contends on appeal that Judge Zeller acted in the absence of subject matter jurisdiction. Zeller was a probate judge, and at the time in question Kansas law granted exclusive jurisdiction of guardianship proceedings to probate judges. K.S.A. s 59-3005 (prior to 1977 amendments). Judge Zeller had at least a semblance of subject matter jurisdiction.

6 Pursuant to Rule 54(b), the district court determined that there was no just reason for delay in the entry of final judgment on the claims involved and directed the clerk to enter final judgments.

7 The 5-3 decision has been criticized. See Rosenberg, Stump v. Sparkman: The Doctrine of Judicial Impunity, 64 Va.L.Rev. 833, 836 (1978) ( “Stump is a possible invitation to judicial lawlessness”).

8 The Stump majority emphasized behavioral factors in defining a judicial act. Justice Stewart, in dissent, suggested a purely conceptual approach: “the concept of what is a judicial act must take its content from a consideration of the factors that support immunity from liability for the performance of such an act.” 435 U.S. at 368, 98 S.Ct. at 1110.

Although Justice Stewart’s approach may not have been adopted by the Court, we do not believe that the majority meant to deny the relevance of the doctrine’s purpose in determining its scope.

9 In Sparks v. Duval County Ranch Co., Inc., 604 F . 2d 976 (5th Cir. 1979) (en banc), aff’d sub nom. Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 101 S.Ct. 183, 66 L.Ed.2d 185 ( 1980 ) , the Fifth Circuit held that a judge accused of accepting a bribe to enter an injunction was “unqualifiedly immune from suit for damages occasioned by his judicial act.” 604 F . 2d at 978 .

The Supreme Court granted certiorari on the issue of derivative immunity, 445 U.S. 942, 100 S.Ct. 1336, 63 L.Ed.2d 775 ( 1980 ) , but denied certiorari on the issue of judicial immunity. 445 U.S. 943, 100 S.Ct. 1339, 63 L.Ed.2d 777 ( 1980 ) .Nevertheless, in affirming the Fifth Circuit’s rejection of derivative immunity, the Court remarked:

The courts below concluded that the judicial immunity doctrine required dismissal of the s 1983 action against the judge who issued the challenged injunction, and as the case comes to us, the judge has been properly dismissed from the suit on immunity grounds.—- U.S. at ——, 101 S.Ct. at 186 (emphasis added).

We do not believe that this dictum forecloses our approach to the present case. The Fifth Circuit focused only on “damages occasioned by (the judge’s) judicial act.” 604 F . 2d at 978. It apparently did not consider, as we do here, the nonjudicial character of the prior agreement. “(A)s the case (came) to” the Supreme Court, only a judicial act had been addressed by “(t) he courts below.”In reviewing the conduct of the judge’s alleged coconspirators, the Dennis Court noted the absence of any claim that the private parties were performing judicial acts. The Court remarked: “Not surprisingly, petitioner does not argue that judges must conspire with private parties in order that judicial duties may be properly accomplished.” at ——, 101 S.Ct. at 187.Likewise, we have little difficulty concluding that immunizing a judge’s private, prior agreement to decide favorably to one party is not the way to preserve the judge’s “free(dom) to act upon his own convictions.” See Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) at 347, 20 L.Ed. 646.

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844 (1980)

10 See Rosenberg, supra note 7, at 849 (procedural defects in Stump “were not deemed germane to the crucial jurisdictional determination”).

The Court did say that “the necessary inquiry in determining whether a defendant judge is immune from suit is whether at the time he took the challenged action he had jurisdiction over the subject matter before him.” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. at 356, 98 S.Ct. at 1104. This might imply that subject matter jurisdiction is sufficient to confer immunity, but it was said in the apparent absence of a specific challenge to personal jurisdiction.Further, the statement did not purport to exhaust the bases on which immunity could be overcome. It did not, for example, mention the requirement that the “challenged action” be “judicial” in character. This requirement was discussed later in the opinion. See id. at 360-64, 98 S.Ct. at 1106-1108. Although the language of Stump is broad, we cannot infer that the Court there decided an issue it did not explicitly consider.

11 Several courts have repeated this language indicating in dicta that both subject matter and personal jurisdiction are necessary to confer judicial immunity. See, e. g., Duba v. McIntyre, 501 F . 2d 590, 592 (8th Cir. 1974) , cert. denied, 424 U.S. 975, 96 S.Ct. 1480, 47 L.Ed.2d 745 (1976) (“the judge must have both jurisdiction over the person and subject matter if he is to be immune from suit”); Ryan v. Scoggin, 245 F . 2d 54, 58 (10th Cir. 1957) (judge is immune for order or judgment when “court has jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the parties”).

12 See Rosenberg, supra note 7, at 849-50.“When a judge structures a controversy such that one side is necessarily precluded from presenting any evidence concerning the decision to be made, the court’s actions properly can be viewed as a jurisdictional error rather than a mere error in the exercise of power.”

Id. at 849.

13 Indeed, when the limits of legitimate authority are wholly abandoned, the judge’s act may cease to be “judicial.” See, e. g., Lopez v. Vanderwater, 620 F . 2d 1229, 1235 (7th Cir. 1980 ) (judge’s prosecutorial acts were nonjudicial; no immunity for such acts); Gregory v. Thompson, 500 F . 2d 59, 64 (9th Cir. 1974) (judge’s use of physical force to evict person from courtroom was “simply not an act of a judicial nature”). Cf. Note, Filling the Void: Judicial Power and Jurisdictional Attacks on Judgments, 87 Yale L.J. 164, 165 (1977) (at English common law proceedings in court without jurisdiction were deemed coram non judice -“before one not a judge”).

14 In Stump, although Indiana law did not expressly grant subject matter jurisdiction over sterilization petitions, the Court found it “more significant that there was no Indiana statute and no case law in 1971 prohibiting a circuit court, a court of general jurisdiction, from considering a petition of the type presented to Judge Stump.” 435 U.S. at 358, 98 S.Ct. at 1105.

The implication is that, had there been Indiana law expressly prohibiting the defendant judge from exercising jurisdiction, a clear absence of jurisdiction would have been established. Here the plaintiff contends that Kansas law expressly prohibited the defendant judge from exercising jurisdiction over Rankin. If this contention is correct, the judge lost his immunity.

15 The allegation that Judge Zeller agreed to rule favorably on the petition is supported by an affidavit from Rankin’s father.The same affidavit may also support an inference that the judge knew he lacked personal jurisdiction. In any event, Zeller’s response to written interrogatories fails to resolve the issue.Zeller recalled being told that Rankin “would be in Pottowatomie (sic) County on December 25, 1976,” but “would be in the jurisdiction only temporarily.” The petition for guardianship recited that Rankin resided in Pottawatomie County. At the very least, Judge Zeller, by his own admission, had serious reason to doubt the allegation on which his jurisdiction over Rankin was premised.In view of the alleged nonjudicial connivance, together with questions surrounding personal jurisdiction under Kansas law and the judge’s actual knowledge, we cannot say that Judge Zeller met his initial burden of showing “that there (was) no genuine issue as to any material fact.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 159, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 1609, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970).

16 See note 15 supra.

End of Document © 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government

Works.

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844 (1980)

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844

Negative Treatment

Negative Direct HistoryThe KeyCited document has been negatively impacted in the following ways by events or decisions in the same litigation or proceedings:There is no negative direct history.Negative Citing References (20)The KeyCited document has been negatively referenced by the following events or decisions in other litigation or proceedings:

Treatment Title Date Type Depth Headnote(s)Overruled by 1. Ashelman v. Pope

793 F.2d 1072 , 9th Cir.(Ariz.)State prisoner filed pro se complaint against state judge and county prosecutor alleging that they conspired to deprive him of various constitutional rights when he was defending...

Jul. 08 , 1986

Case 7 11 14F.2d

Declined to Follow by

2. Holloway v. Walker

765 F.2d 517 , 5th Cir.(Tex.)Section 1983 action was brought against state court judge who allegedly seized control of oil company through abuse of judicial office pursuant to bribe and conspiracy to deprive...

Jul. 18 , 1985

Case —

Declined to Follow by

3. Dykes v. Hosemann

776 F.2d 942 , 11th Cir.(Fla.)Mother and son brought civil rights suit against son’s father, a state juvenile court judge, and other parties alleging conspiracy to deprive mother and son of their constitutional...

Nov. 18 , 1985

Case 11F.2d

Declined to Follow by

4. Parker v. State

92 Md.App. 540 , Md.App.Motorist who was convicted in District Court of speeding but who was acquitted after de novo trial in Circuit Court sued Circuit Court judge who, after her acquittal, mistakenly...

Jul. 13 , 1992

Case 11F.2d

Overruling Recognized by

5. New Alaska Development Corp. v. Guetschow

869 F.2d 1298 , 9th Cir.(Alaska)Action was brought against state court judge and receiver appointed by him to take over husband’s business affairs in connection with

Mar. 09 , 1989

Case —

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844

Treatment Title Date Type Depth Headnote(s)

marital dissolution proceeding. The United...

Overruling Recognized by

6. Rice v. Dunn

81 Md.App. 510 , Md.App.Tort action was brought against district court commissioner arising out of his issuance of arrest warrant. The Circuit Court, Montgomery County, Stanley Frosh, J., denied...

Feb. 02 , 1990

Case —

Overruling Recognized by

7. John v. Barron

897 F.2d 1387 , 7th Cir.(Wis.)Trustee who was removed brought three lawsuits in district court arising out of his removal. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Terence T....

Mar. 08 , 1990

Case —

Overruling Recognized by

8. Jackson v. Manhatten and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority (M.B.S.T.O.A.)

1993 WL 118510 , S.D.N.Y.In this Opinion and Order, the court addresses the motions by each of the defendants to dismiss the complaint against them on various grounds.   Section I of this Opinion and Order...

Apr. 13 , 1993

Case 3F.2d

Overruling Recognized by

9. Worrall v. Irwin

890 F.Supp. 696 , S.D.OhioGuardian brought suit to recover costs and expenses incurred in recovering ward’s property and defendant, who allegedly received property from ward as gift, filed counterclaim...

Jul. 01 , 1994

Case 3F.2d

Overruling Recognized by

10. Sampson v. Nowicki

1995 WL 765295 , N.D.Ill.Jacob Sampson (“Sampson”) has filed what he labels as a “Complaint for Declaratory Judgment” against Circuit Court of Cook County Judge Julia Nowicki and Colen Hansen (“Hansen”), a...

Dec. 21 , 1995

Case —

Overruling Recognized by

11. Samuel v. Michaud

980 F.Supp. 1381 , D.IdahoPlaintiffs filed § 1983 and Bivens claims against various federal and state officials, claiming conspiracy to deprive plaintiffs of their constitutional rights.   Various...

Mar. 07 , 1996

Case —

Overruling Recognized by

12. Flanagan v. Shamo

111 F.Supp.2d 892 , E.D.Mich.

Aug. 25 , 2000

Case 11F.2d

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844

Treatment Title Date Type Depth Headnote(s)

JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION - Judges. Judge was protected by judicial immunity when he held police officer in contempt.

Overruling Recognized by

13. Scott v. Morgan

2001 WL 34042611 , E.D.Va.On November 28, 2000, Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, filed suit seeking money damages from the Defendant, a federal judge in the United States District Court for the Eastern...

May 24 , 2001

Case 2 11F.2d

Overruling Recognized by

14. Sims v. Beamer

757 N.E.2d 1021 , Ind.App.LITIGATION - Judges. Judge was entitled to immunity on litigant’s civil conspiracy claim.

Oct. 31 , 2001

Case 3F.2d

Overruling Recognized by

15. Lanier v. Sylvester

2008 WL 4830797 , D.Colo.This matter is before the Court on the recommendation by the Magistrate Judge that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 7) be granted. Timely objections and responses have been...

Nov. 04 , 2008

Case —

Overruling Recognized by

16. Cavanagh v. Director, Ventura County Probation

2011 WL 1344546 , C.D.Cal.This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Manuel L. Real, United States District Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 and General Order 194 of...

Feb. 11 , 2011

Case —

Called into Doubt by

17. Krempp v. Dobbs

775 F.2d 1319 , 5th Cir.(Tex.)Father who was dissatisfied with results of state court child custody proceedings brought action individually and on behalf of his minor son, parents and present wife against an...

Nov. 08 , 1985

Case —

Distinguished by

18. Birch v. Mazander

678 F.2d 754 , 8th Cir.(Ark.)Plaintiff appealed from the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, Oren Harris, Senior District Judge, which granted summary judgment to municipal judge...

May 20 , 1982

Case —

Distinguished by

19. Bach v. County of Butte Sep. 29 , 1983

Case 4 14F.2d

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844

Treatment Title Date Type Depth Headnote(s)

147 Cal.App.3d 554 , Cal.App. 3 Dist.Plaintiff brought suit alleging that city, two of its employees, county and deputy district attorney conspired to vex, annoy, or injure him by filing and prosecuting a criminal...

Distinguished by 20. Korotki v. Goughan

597 F.Supp. 1365 , D.Md.Motorist brought civil rights action against town, town officials, policeman, and others, seeking damages arising out of violations of the Non-Resident Violator Compact.   After...

Sep. 28 , 1984

Case 11 12F.2d

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844

Appellate History (3)

Direct History (3)

1. Rankin v. Howard457 F.Supp. 70 , D.Ariz. , Jul. 07, 1978

Judgment Reversed by

2. Rankin v. Howard 633 F.2d 844 , 9th Cir.(Ariz.) , Dec. 05, 1980

Certiorari Denied by

3. Zeller v. Rankin451 U.S. 939 , U.S.Ariz. , Apr. 27, 1981

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844

Citing References (126)

Treatment Title Date Type Depth Headnote(s)

Overruled by 1. Ashelman v. Pope793 F.2d 1072, 1076+ , 9th Cir.(Ariz.)State prisoner filed pro se complaint against state judge and county prosecutor alleging that they conspired to deprive him of various constitutional rights when he was defending...

Jul. 08, 1986 Case 7 11 14

F.2d

Examined by 2. Beard v. Udall 648 F.2d 1264, 1268+ , 9th Cir.(Ariz.)Plaintiffs brought action alleging that state court judge, county prosecutor, and county sheriff were responsible for instigation, prosecution, and continuation of proceedings...

Jun. 26, 1981 Case 11 12 14

F.2d

Examined by 3. Dykes v. Hosemann 743 F.2d 1488, 1494+ , 11th Cir.(Fla.)Mother brought section 1983 action alleging, in essence, that defendants acted to deprive her of her constitutional right to raise her child without due process of law. The...

Oct. 11, 1984

Case 10 11 12

F.2d

Examined by 4. Miller v. Duffin 637 F.Supp. 496, 500+ , N.D.Ind.Prisoner brought civil rights action against state court judge, who entered judgment of conviction against him, deputy prosecutor, defense attorney, and another.   The District...

May 07, 1986

Case 4 12

F.2d

— 5. WHAT CONSTITUTES A JUDICIAL ACT FOR PURPOSES OF JUDICIAL IMMUNITY?, 53 Fordham L. Rev. 1503, 1518+Under the established doctrine of judicial immunity, a judge is absolutely immune from a suit for damages for his judicial acts taken within or even in excess of his jurisdiction. ...

1985 Law Review — 2 3

F.2d

Declined to Follow by

6. Holloway v. Walker765 F.2d 517, 522+ , 5th Cir.(Tex.)Section 1983 action was brought against state court judge who allegedly seized control of oil company through abuse of judicial office pursuant to bribe and conspiracy to deprive...

Jul. 18, 1985 Case —

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844

Treatment Title Date Type Depth Headnote(s)

Overruling Recognized by

7. Scott v. Morgan 2001 WL 34042611, *4+ , E.D.Va.On November 28, 2000, Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, filed suit seeking money damages from the Defendant, a federal judge in the United States District Court for the Eastern...

May 24, 2001

Case 2 11

F.2d

Overruling Recognized by

8. John v. Barron897 F.2d 1387, 1392+ , 7th Cir.(Wis.)Trustee who was removed brought three lawsuits in district court arising out of his removal. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Terence T....

Mar. 08, 1990

Case —

Distinguished by

9. Korotki v. Goughan 597 F.Supp. 1365, 1383+ , D.Md.Motorist brought civil rights action against town, town officials, policeman, and others, seeking damages arising out of violations of the Non-Resident Violator Compact.   After...

Sep. 28, 1984

Case 11 12

F.2d

Distinguished by

10. Bach v. County of Butte195 Cal.Rptr. 268, 276+ , Cal.App. 3 Dist.Plaintiff brought suit alleging that city, two of its employees, county and deputy district attorney conspired to vex, annoy, or injure him by filing and prosecuting a criminal...

Sep. 29, 1983

Case 4 14

F.2d

Discussed by 11. O’Neil v. City of Lake Oswego 642 F.2d 367, 369+ , 9th Cir.(Or.)Civil rights action was brought against pro tem municipal judge and against arresting officer. The United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Robert C. Belloni, J.,...

Apr. 20, 1981

Case 10 11

F.2d

Discussed by 12. Brooks v. Fitch 534 F.Supp. 129, 134+ , D.N.J.Civil rights action was brought against lawyer in his individual capacity and in his capacity as county prosecutor and against the county alleging that the lawyer abused his...

Dec. 07, 1981

Case 3

F.2d

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844

Treatment Title Date Type Depth Headnote(s)

— 13. Validity of guardianship proceeding based on brainwashing of subject by religious, political, or social organization, 44 A.L.R.4th 1207This annotation collects and analyzes the state and federal cases in which the courts have discussed or decided the validity of a conservatorship or guardianship proceeding based...

1986 ALR — 4 11 1214 15

F.2d

— 14. Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Litigation: The Law of Section 1983 s 7:21, Relevance of prior agreements and personal jurisdictionCivil Rights and Civil Liberties Litigation: The Law of Section 1983Two important issues, both of which were implicated in the Ninth Circuit’s 1980 decision in Rankin v. Howard, now overruled, must be addressed because they may still have current...

2011 Other Secondary Source

— 11 12

F.2d

— 15. THE PROBLEM OF “THE JUDGE WHO MAKES THE CASE HIS OWN”: NOTIONS OF JUDICIAL IMMUNITY AND JUDICIAL LIABILITY IN ANCIENT ROME, 49 Cath. U. L. Rev. 429, ...Judicial misconduct has increasingly become the subject of public and legal scrutiny. The American Bar Association has promulgated rules that restrict judges’ personal and...

2000 Law Review — 7 10 11

F.2d

— 16. MIRELES v. WACO: THE SUPREME COURT PRESCRIBES THE BITTER FILL OF JUDICIAL IMMUNITY AND SUMMARY REVERSAL, 26 U. Rich. L. Rev. 539, 560+I do not think that all judges, under all circumstances, no matter how outrageous their conduct are immune from suit. . . . The Court’s ruling is not justified by the admitted need...

1992 Law Review — 7 11 14

F.2d

Declined to Follow by

17. Parker v. State609 A.2d 347, 350 , Md.App.Motorist who was convicted in District Court of speeding but who was acquitted after de novo trial in Circuit Court sued Circuit Court judge who, after her acquittal, mistakenly...

Jul. 13, 1992 Case 11

F.2d

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844

Treatment Title Date Type Depth Headnote(s)

Declined to Follow by

18. Dykes v. Hosemann776 F.2d 942, 946+ , 11th Cir.(Fla.)Mother and son brought civil rights suit against son’s father, a state juvenile court judge, and other parties alleging conspiracy to deprive mother and son of their constitutional...

Nov. 18, 1985

Case 11

F.2d

Overruling Recognized by

19. Cavanagh v. Director, Ventura County Probation2011 WL 1344546, *2+ , C.D.Cal.This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Manuel L. Real, United States District Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 and General Order 194 of...

Feb. 11, 2011

Case —

Overruling Recognized by

20. Lanier v. Sylvester2008 WL 4830797, *3 , D.Colo.This matter is before the Court on the recommendation by the Magistrate Judge that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 7) be granted. Timely objections and responses have been...

Nov. 04, 2008

Case —

Overruling Recognized by

21. Sims v. Beamer757 N.E.2d 1021, 1025+ , Ind.App.LITIGATION - Judges. Judge was entitled to immunity on litigant’s civil conspiracy claim.

Oct. 31, 2001

Case 3

F.2d

Overruling Recognized by

22. Flanagan v. Shamo111 F.Supp.2d 892, 896+ , E.D.Mich.JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION - Judges. Judge was protected by judicial immunity when he held police officer in contempt.

Aug. 25, 2000

Case 11

F.2d

Overruling Recognized by

23. Samuel v. Michaud980 F.Supp. 1381, 1400+ , D.IdahoPlaintiffs filed § 1983 and Bivens claims against various federal and state officials, claiming conspiracy to deprive plaintiffs of their constitutional rights.   Various...

Mar. 07, 1996

Case —

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844

Treatment Title Date Type Depth Headnote(s)

Overruling Recognized by

24. Sampson v. Nowicki1995 WL 765295, *1 , N.D.Ill.Jacob Sampson (“Sampson”) has filed what he labels as a “Complaint for Declaratory Judgment” against Circuit Court of Cook County Judge Julia Nowicki and Colen Hansen (“Hansen”), a...

Dec. 21, 1995

Case —

Overruling Recognized by

25. Worrall v. Irwin890 F.Supp. 696, 705 , S.D.OhioGuardian brought suit to recover costs and expenses incurred in recovering ward’s property and defendant, who allegedly received property from ward as gift, filed counterclaim...

Jul. 01, 1994 Case 3

F.2d

Overruling Recognized by

26. Jackson v. Manhatten and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority (M.B.S.T.O.A.) 1993 WL 118510, *3+ , S.D.N.Y.In this Opinion and Order, the court addresses the motions by each of the defendants to dismiss the complaint against them on various grounds.   Section I of this Opinion and Order...

Apr. 13, 1993

Case 3

F.2d

Overruling Recognized by

27. Rice v. Dunn 568 A.2d 1125, 1129 , Md.App.Tort action was brought against district court commissioner arising out of his issuance of arrest warrant. The Circuit Court, Montgomery County, Stanley Frosh, J., denied...

Feb. 02, 1990

Case —

Overruling Recognized by

28. New Alaska Development Corp. v. Guetschow869 F.2d 1298, 1302 , 9th Cir.(Alaska)Action was brought against state court judge and receiver appointed by him to take over husband’s business affairs in connection with marital dissolution proceeding. The United...

Mar. 09, 1989

Case —

Called into Doubt by

29. Krempp v. Dobbs775 F.2d 1319, 1321+ , 5th Cir.(Tex.)Father who was dissatisfied with results of state court child custody proceedings brought action individually and on behalf of his minor son, parents and present wife against an...

Nov. 08, 1985

Case —

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844

Treatment Title Date Type Depth Headnote(s)

Cited by 30. Colombrito v. Kelly 764 F.2d 122, 132+ , 2nd Cir.(N.Y.)’’Deprogrammers’’ moved for an award of attorney fees in civil rights action brought against them by church member after Court of Appeals granted a writ of mandate directing the...

Jun. 12, 1985 Case 14 15

F.2d

Cited by 31. Arsenaux v. Roberts726 F.2d 1022, 1023 , 5th Cir.(La.)Suitor who lost domestic relations action in state court sought damages from the state trial judge and his wife’s lawyer on the basis of alleged violation of civil rights. ...

Oct. 04, 1982

Case —

Cited by 32. Harper v. Merckle638 F.2d 848, 856 , 5th Cir.(Fla.)Civil Rights Act suit was brought against county judge. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, George C. Young, Chief Judge, entered judgment on jury...

Mar. 05, 1981

Case —

Cited by 33. Mills v. Killebrew765 F.2d 69, 71 , 6th Cir.(Mich.)Plaintiffs, winners in a forced mediation case, brought civil rights action against lawyers who served on mediation panel. The United States District Court for the Eastern...

Jun. 11, 1985 Case 10 11

F.2d

Cited by 34. U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez 939 F.2d 1341, 1344 , 9th Cir.(Cal.)Defendant was convicted in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Edward Rafeedie, J., of murder. Defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals,...

Jul. 22, 1991 Case 6

F.2d

Cited by 35. Richardson v. Koshiba693 F.2d 911, 914 , 9th Cir.(Hawai’i)Former state court judge brought action against State Judicial Selection Commission to recover for alleged violation of civil rights. The United States District Court for the...

Dec. 01, 1982

Case 11

F.2d

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844

Treatment Title Date Type Depth Headnote(s)

Cited by 36. Martinez v. Winner771 F.2d 424, 435 , 10th Cir.(Colo.)Action was brought for deprivations of plaintiff’s civil and constitutional rights and for various state common-law torts.   The United States District Court for the District of...

Aug. 22, 1985

Case 2

F.2d

Cited by 37. Ginter v. Stallcup641 F.Supp. 939, 967 , E.D.Ark.Civil rights action was brought against FBI agents and county prosecutor.   Defendants moved to dismiss.   The District Court, Eisele, Chief Judge, held that:  (1) FBI had...

Feb. 24, 1986

Case 10

F.2d

Cited by 38. Martinez v. Winner548 F.Supp. 278, 291 , D.Colo.Plaintiff, whose criminal trial ended in a mistrial, brought civil rights action against the federal district judge, who presided at the trial, the federal prosecutors, various...

Jul. 30, 1982 Case —

Cited by 39. Pagano v. Hadley535 F.Supp. 92, 96 , D.Del.State of Delaware, four police officers and a justice of the peace were sued to recover for plaintiff’s arrest and confinement in state hospital. The District Court, Stapleton,...

Mar. 09, 1982

Case 3

F.2d

Cited by 40. King v. Thornburg 762 F.Supp. 336, 341+ , S.D.Ga.Attorney who was arrested by deputy United States Marshal for failing to arrange for law partner or associate to appear in his stead before United States Magistrate Judge at...

Apr. 17, 1991

Case 10 11

F.2d

Cited by 41. Shepard v. Byrd581 F.Supp. 1374, 1385 , N.D.Ga.Pharmacist whose license was revoked by State Board of Pharmacy, and who was acquitted of obtaining scheduled drugs by fraud, filed suit against the Board, its members, two state...

Feb. 10, 1984

Case —

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844

Treatment Title Date Type Depth Headnote(s)

Cited by 42. Instituto Nacional De Comercializacion Agricola (Indeca) v. Continental Illinois Nat. Bank and Trust Co. of Chicago576 F.Supp. 991, 1005 , N.D.Ill.Quasi-national corporation brought action to recover damages arising out of allegedly fraudulent scheme in which corporation was bilked of over $5,000,000 in attempted purchase of...

Dec. 02, 1983

Case 1

F.2d

Cited by 43. Elliott v. Perez561 F.Supp. 1325, 1333+ , E.D.La.Grand jury foreman and a grand jury witness brought action against state prosecutor and state court judge to recover damages for bad faith and malicious prosecution and improper...

Mar. 31, 1983

Case 3

F.2d

Cited by 44. Ferguson v. U.S. Dist. Court 2009 WL 2423440, *1 , D.Mont.On June 22, 2009, United States Magistrate Judge Carolyn Ostby entered Findings and Recommendation (Doc.3 ) with respect to Plaintiff’s Complaint and ‘’Counterclaim for Trespass...

Aug. 03, 2009

Case 7

F.2d

Cited by 45. Liles v. Reagan625 F.Supp. 1470, 1474 , D.Neb.Plaintiff brought suit against state district court judge under § 1983 and state statute prohibiting oppression under color of office.   On motions to dismiss, the District Court,...

Jan. 13, 1986 Case 3

F.2d

Cited by 46. Lewis v. Lewis695 F.Supp. 1089, 1090 , D.Nev.Following removal to district court, former husband filed a motion to dismiss complaint of former wife seeking to partition husband’s military retirement benefits.   The District...

Sep. 12, 1988

Case 5

F.2d

Cited by 47. Carter v. Rupracht 532 F.Supp. 383, 385 , D.Nev.In civil rights complaint against justice of the peace, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of justice of the peace upon plaintiff’s failure to respond to motion...

Dec. 23, 1981

Case —

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844

Treatment Title Date Type Depth Headnote(s)

Cited by 48. Fondel v. Gawthrop1990 WL 21112, *4 , E.D.N.Y.Any objections to the enclosed Report and Recommendation of the undersigned dated January 31, 1990 must be filed with the Honorable Edward R. Korman no later than February 21,...

Feb. 05, 1990

Case —

Cited by 49. Colombrito v. Kelly590 F.Supp. 181, 186 , S.D.N.Y.Civil rights action was brought against deprogrammer by member of religious organization.   After Court of Appeals granted writ of mandate directing District Court to dismiss the...

Jul. 05, 1984 Case —

Cited by 50. Schorle v. City of Greenhills524 F.Supp. 821, 828 , S.D.OhioPlaintiff brought civil action for damages alleging violations of his civil rights. The District Court, Spiegel, J., held that: (1) plaintiff’s cause of action was not time barred...

Feb. 26, 1981

Case 10 11

F.2d

Cited by 51. Whiteside v. State of Wash.534 F.Supp. 774, 777 , E.D.Wash.Complainant brought civil rights action against trial and appellate judges, city attorneys, city, and state of Washington for alleged indiscretions in state trial on traffic...

Mar. 26, 1982

Case 11

F.2d

Cited by 52. Widoff v. Wiens45 P.3d 1232, 1235 , Ariz.App. Div. 1JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION - Judges. Guardian ad litem appointed by the court was entitled to judicial immunity.

May 16, 2002

Case 2

F.2d

Cited by 53. Moreland v. Poss320 S.E.2d 841, 843 , Ga.App.Ex-husband brought action against his ex-wife’s attorney, county sheriffs, and others for violation of his federal civil rights, false imprisonment, invasion of privacy,...

Jul. 05, 1984 Case 14

F.2d

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844

Treatment Title Date Type Depth Headnote(s)

Cited by 54. Borkowski v. Abood861 N.E.2d 872, 875+ , Ohio App. 6 Dist.JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION - Judges. Judicial immunity did not apply to a judge who acted in the clear absence of his jurisdiction.

Sep. 22, 2006

Case 10 11

F.2d

Cited by 55. Collins v. King County742 P.2d 185, 188 , Wash.App. Div. 1Children brought action against county prosecuting attorney, deputy prosecutors, former assistant director of prosecutor’s victim assistance unit and others alleging wrongful...

Sep. 08, 1987

Case —

Cited by 56. Cooney v. Park County792 P.2d 1287, 1342+ , Wyo.Probationer and his wife brought § 1983 suit against deputy county attorney, the State of Wyoming, the Department of Probation and Parole and probation officer, alleging violations...

Apr. 18, 1990

Case 10

F.2d

— 57. Civil liability for “deprogramming” member of religious sect, 11 A.L.R.4th 228This annotation collects and discusses those state and federal cases wherein the courts have determined whether an individual can be held liable under the Federal Civil Rights Act,...

1982 ALR — 4 11 1415

F.2d

— 58. Judgment or order dismissing action as against one defendant as subject of appeal or error before disposition of case as against codefendant, 114 A.L....This annotation is supplemental to that on the same subject in 80 A.L.R. 1186. (Supplementing annotation in 80 A.L.R. 1186.) The later cases generally support the general rule...

1938 ALR — 1

F.2d

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844

Treatment Title Date Type Depth Headnote(s)

— 59. Finality, for purposes of appeal, of judgment in Federal court which disposes of plaintiff’s claim, but not of defendant’s counterclaim, or vice versa...It has been regarded as axiomatic that only final judgments are appealable, two exceptions being allowed by § 129 of the Federal Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C.A. § 227, 7 FCA title 28, §...

1943 ALR — 1

F.2d

— 60. 2 Arizona Practice s 4.7, The judicial functionArizona PracticeThe Code of Judicial Conduct provides standards for the judiciary. The Code consists of seven canons and it has been adopted in Arizona as Supreme Court Rule 81 to govern the...

2011 Other Secondary Source

— 2

F.2d

— 61. 2 Arizona Practice s 6.1, The court’s authorityArizona PracticeJurisdiction is the court’s power and authority to hear and determine a particular legal action or issue. An objection or challenge to a court’s determination or right to determine...

2011 Other Secondary Source

— 5

F.2d

— 62. Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Litigation: The Law of Section 1983 s 2:26, Conspiracy in general: governing principles-Sufficient evidence of conspi...Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Litigation: The Law of Section 1983In contrast, sufficient evidence of conspiracy was found in an interesting Third Circuit case involving two governmental entities. The plaintiff parking garage sued a city and its...

2011 Other Secondary Source

— —

— 63. Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Litigation: The Law of Section 1983 s 7:50, In the circuits and the states: advocative, investigative, and trial-rela...Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Litigation: The Law of Section 1983The general rule in the circuits is that prosecutorial decisions whether to prosecute or not are protected by absolute immunity. Other pretrial prosecutorial acts relating directly...

2011 Other Secondary Source

— —

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844

Treatment Title Date Type Depth Headnote(s)

— 64. Local Government Law s 27:11, Absolute immunity for judicial and legislative functions: state or federal claims against entities or individualsLocal Government LawLeading decisions and statutes often contain language to the effect that local government units are liable in tort to the same extent as private persons. This language, however, is...

2012 Other Secondary Source

— 10

F.2d

— 65. Municipal Liability Law and Practice s 13.16, JUDICIAL IMMUNITYMunicipal Liability Law and PracticeThe doctrine of judicial immunity is firmly entrenched in American jurisprudence. American courts adopted the concepts from the English common-law courts, which as early as the...

2012 Other Secondary Source

— —

— 66. Restatement (Second) of Torts s 895D, Public OfficersRestatement (Second) of Torts(1) Except as provided in this Section a public officer is not immune from tort liability. (2) A public officer acting within the general scope of his authority is immune from tort...

1979 Other Secondary Source

— —

— 67. Section 1983 Litigation Claims and Defenses s 9.03, JUDICIAL IMMUNITYSection 1983 Litigation Claims and DefensesSection 1983 plaintiffs at times assert claims for relief against state and local court judges. These claims are typically dismissed on the basis of absolute judicial immunity. As...

2012 Other Secondary Source

— —

— 68. Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. s 2656, When a Judgment Under Rule 54(b) Can Be Entered-In GeneralWright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc.Rule 54(b) is permissive in nature. The court is given the power to enter a final judgment as to less than all the claims or parties to an action, if it decides that the ends of...

2011 Other Secondary Source

— 1

F.2d

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844

Treatment Title Date Type Depth Headnote(s)

— 69. Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. s 2730, Actions Involving State of MindWright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc.In Croley v. Matson Navigation Company, plaintiffs brought suit to recover for the injury of one shipyard employee and the wrongful death of another caused by an explosion of...

2011 Other Secondary Source

— 15

F.2d

— 70. Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. s 2734, DefensesWright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc.A motion for summary judgment has two uses in connection with a defense to plaintiff’s action. First, the motion may be made by plaintiff to test a defense’s sufficiency. Second,...

2011 Other Secondary Source

— 11 12

F.2d

— 71. CJS Courts s 18, GenerallyCJS CourtsJurisdiction embraces three essential elements: jurisdiction of the subject matter, jurisdiction of the person, and jurisdiction of the particular case. Thus, for a court to...

2012 Other Secondary Source

— 5 6

F.2d

— 72. REGULATION OF RELIGIOUS PROSELYTISM IN THE UNITED STATES, 2001 B.Y.U. L. Rev. 537, 574+The public regulation of ‘’proselytism’’ has engendered a great deal of discussion about the persecution of religious groups in various parts of the world. Much publicity and...

2001 Law Review — —

— 73. OFFICIAL IMMUNITY IN FEDERAL COURT: SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA v. CONSUMERS UNION OF THE UNITED STATES, INC., 67 Cornell L. Rev. 188, 218Doctrines of official immunity insulate state and federal executive, legislative, and judicial officers from judicial proceedings arising out of their performance of official...

1981 Law Review — —

— 74. AUTHORITY OF THE TRIAL JUDGE, 74 Geo. L.J. 801, 811Judicial Misconduct. A trial judge has broad discretion in the use of his or her trial authority. In the absence of a clear abuse of discretion, a reviewing court will not overturn...

1986 Law Review — —

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844

Treatment Title Date Type Depth Headnote(s)

— 75. HANDGUN PROHIBITION AND THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT, 82 Mich. L. Rev. 204, 273Federal or state handgun prohibition legislation is often suggested as one way to reduce the incidence of homicide and other violent crime in the United States. Whatever the...

1983 Law Review — —

— 76. INTERNATIONAL KIDNAPPING IN A VIOLENT WORLD: WHERE THE UNITED STATES OUGHT TO DRAW THE LINE, 137 Mil. L. Rev. 187, 240I. Introduction On Thursday, November 14, 1991, the United States handed down indictments against Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi and Lamen Khalifa Fhimah, two Libyans, for their parts...

1992 Law Review — —

— 77. TRANSBORDER ABDUCTIONS: THE SUPREME COURT EXTENDS THE REACH OF “THE LONG ARM OF THE LAW” IN UNITED STATES v. ALVAREZ-MACHAIN, 20 New Eng. J. on Crim. ...Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law; invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in...

1993 Law Review — 6

F.2d

— 78. THE SCOPE OF MEDIATOR IMMUNITY: WHEN MEDIATORS CAN INVOKE ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY, 12 Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol. 629, 684Mediation, an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) technique, uses a neutral third party to facilitate dispute resolution. Mediators provide disputants with a nonbinding assessment...

1997 Law Review — 11

F.2d

— 79. THE LIABILITIES AND IMMUNITIES OF MEDIATORS: A HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT FOR MODEL LEGISLATION, 2 Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol. 47, 83A. The Liability Landscape in Context The topic of mediator liability is both difficult and controversial. The role of the mediator is complex and varies depending on the precise...

1986 Law Review — —

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844

Treatment Title Date Type Depth Headnote(s)

— 80. TORT LIABILITY FOR CULT DEPROGRAMMING: PETERSON v. SORLIEN, 43 Ohio St. L.J. 465, 473+Over the past decade, Americans have witnessed with some alarm the proliferation of new religious cults. The Hare Krishna, the Moonies, and the Children of God represent only the...

1982 Law Review — 4 14

F.2d

— 81. JUDICIAL IMMUNITY FROM CIVIL AND CRIMINAL LIABILITY, 27 San Diego L. Rev. 1, 28+It is generally thought that some of those who serve in government should possess some degree of immunity from civil liability for acts performed as part of their official duties. ...

1990 Law Review — —

— 82. TORTS--WAGSHAL V. FOSTER: MEDIATORS, CASE EVALUATORS, AND OTHER NEUTRALS--SHOULD BE ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE?, 26 U. Mem. L. Rev. 1229, 1250Jerome S. Wagshal filed suit in the District of Columbia Superior Court in June 1990 against Charles E. Sheetz, the manager of real property owned by Wagshal. Judge Richard A....

1996 Law Review — 10

F.2d

— 83. DAMAGE SUITS AGAINST PUBLIC OFFICERS, 129 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1110, 1188Increasingly over the past twenty years, government officials have been sued for monetary damages. An array of asserted injuries (physical, financial, and emotional) attributed to...

1981 Law Review — —

— 84. 684 Practising Law Institute Litigation and Administrative Practice: Litigation 231Practising Law Institute Litigation and Administrative Practice: LitigationI. History of Section 1983 II. Exhaustion Requirements III. State Action IV. Substantive Scope of Liability V. Alternate State Remedies VI. Distinction Between Constitutional Torts...

2002 Other Secondary Source

— —

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844

Treatment Title Date Type Depth Headnote(s)

— 85. NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN CIVIL RIGHTS LITIGATION AND TRENDS IN SECTION 1983 ACTIONS, 665 Practising Law Institute Litigation and Administrative Practice: L...Practising Law Institute Litigation and Administrative Practice: Litigation’’Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected,...

2001 Other Secondary Source

— —

— 86. NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN CIVIL RIGHTS LITIGATION AND TRENDS IN SECTION 1983 ACTIONS, 618 Practising Law Institute Litigation and Administrative Practice: L...Practising Law Institute Litigation and Administrative Practice: Litigation’’Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected,...

1999 Other Secondary Source

— —

— 87. NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN CIVIL RIGHTS LITIGATION AND TRENDS IN SECTION 1983 ACTIONS, 576 Practising Law Institute Litigation and Administrative Practice: L...Practising Law Institute Litigation and Administrative Practice: Litigation’’Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected,...

1997 Other Secondary Source

— —

— 88. NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN CIVIL RIGHTS LITIGATION AND TRENDS IN SECTION 1983 ACTIONS, 554 Practising Law Institute Litigation and Administrative Practice: L...Practising Law Institute Litigation and Administrative Practice: LitigationI. History of 42 U.S.C Section 1983 II. Exhaustion III. State Action IV. Substantive Scope of Liability V. Existence of Alternate Remedies VI. Distinction Between Constitutional...

1996 Other Secondary Source

— —

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844

Treatment Title Date Type Depth Headnote(s)

— 89. NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN CIVIL RIGHTS LITIGATION AND TRENDS IN SECTION 1983 ACTIONS, 530 Practising Law Institute Litigation and Administrative Practice: L...Practising Law Institute Litigation and Administrative Practice: Litigation’’Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected,...

1995 Other Secondary Source

— —

— 90. NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN CIVIL RIGHTS LITIGATION AND TRENDS IN SECTION 1983 ACTION, 511 Practising Law Institute Litigation and Administrative Practice: Li...Practising Law Institute Litigation and Administrative Practice: Litigation’’Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected,...

1994 Other Secondary Source

— —

— 91. NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN CIVIL RIGHTS LITIGATION, AND TRENDS IN SECTION 1983 ACTIONS, 484 Practising Law Institute Litigation and Administrative Practice: ...Practising Law Institute Litigation and Administrative Practice: Litigation’’Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected,...

1993 Other Secondary Source

— —

— 92. NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN CIVIL RIGHTS LITIGATION AND TRENDS IN SECTION 1983 ACTIONS, 448 Practising Law Institute Litigation and Administrative Practice: L...Practising Law Institute Litigation and Administrative Practice: Litigation’’Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected,...

1992 Other Secondary Source

— —

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844

Treatment Title Date Type Depth Headnote(s)

— 93. CONSTITUTIONAL TORTS, 419 Practising Law Institute Litigation and Administrative Practice: Litigation 207Practising Law Institute Litigation and Administrative Practice: LitigationA. Introduction B. Property C. Liberty D. Due Process ‘’Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State or Territory or the...

1991 Other Secondary Source

— —

— 94. IMMUNITY DOCTRINES LIMITING INDIVIDUAL LIABILITY IN CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIONS, 336 Practising Law Institute Litigation and Administrative Practice: Litigat...Practising Law Institute Litigation and Administrative Practice: LitigationI. In recent years, the Supreme Court has greatly extended the scope of immunities available to government officials in civil rights actions under Sec. 1983. In addition to...

1987 Other Secondary Source

— 7

F.2d

Distinguished by

95. Birch v. Mazander678 F.2d 754, 756 , 8th Cir.(Ark.)Plaintiff appealed from the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, Oren Harris, Senior District Judge, which granted summary judgment to municipal judge...

May 20, 1982

Case —

Mentioned by 96. Sevier v. Turner742 F.2d 262, 271 , 6th Cir.(Tenn.)Appeal was taken from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Odell Horton, J., dismissing his suit arising out of state proceedings...

Aug. 08, 1984

Case —

Mentioned by 97. Moses v. Parwatikar813 F.2d 891, 893 , 8th Cir.(Mo.)State prisoner brought civil rights action against psychiatrist who had performed competency examination prior to trial.   The United States District Court for the Eastern District...

Mar. 09, 1987

Case 11

F.2d

Mentioned by 98. Ortiz v. Van Auken--- Fed.Appx. ----+ , 9th Cir.(Cal.)E.D.Cal. AFFIRMED.

Apr. 28, 1989

Case —

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844

Treatment Title Date Type Depth Headnote(s)

Mentioned by 99. Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court for Dist. of Nevada 828 F.2d 1385, 1389 , 9th Cir.(Nev.)Debtor brought civil rights action against bankruptcy judges, bankruptcy court clerks, and bankruptcy court trustee seeking damages and declaratory and injunctive relief.   The...

Sep. 24, 1987

Case 7 11

F.2d

Mentioned by 100. Thompson v. Thompson798 F.2d 1547, 1549 , 9th Cir.(Cal.)Father brought action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act with respect to conflicting state child custody decrees.   The United...

Sep. 10, 1986

Case 8

F.2d

Mentioned by 101. Ashelman v. Pope769 F.2d 1360, 1362 , 9th Cir.(Ariz.)State prisoner filed pro se complaint against county superior court judge, and county attorney’s office alleging that judge and county attorney’s office conspired to deprive him of...

Aug. 27, 1985

Case —

Mentioned by 102. Fonda v. Gray707 F.2d 435, 437+ , 9th Cir.(Cal.)Plaintiff brought suit against government officials and two banks alleging a wide-ranging conspiracy designed to suppress her outspoken political views. The United States...

Jun. 03, 1983 Case —

Mentioned by 103. O’Connor v. State of Nev.686 F.2d 749, 750 , 9th Cir.(Nev.)Civil rights suit was brought against state, several of its agencies, district attorney, and municipal court judge. The United States District Court for the District of Nevada,...

Aug. 24, 1982

Case 11

F.2d

Mentioned by 104. Wagshal v. Foster28 F.3d 1249, 1254 , D.C.Cir.Plaintiff brought action against alternative dispute resolution mediator and members of mediator’s law firm, arising from mediator’s conduct in plaintiff’s underlying litigation in...

Jul. 15, 1994 Case 10 11

F.2d

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844

Treatment Title Date Type Depth Headnote(s)

Mentioned by 105. Church of Scientology Intern. v. Kolts846 F.Supp. 873, 887 , C.D.Cal.Litigant filed action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief based on alleged violations of its due process rights by special master appointed to serve in consolidated cases...

Feb. 16, 1994

Case 11

F.2d

Mentioned by 106. In re DeLay48 B.R. 282, 286 , W.D.Mo.Appeal was taken from order of the Bankruptcy Court, Frank P. Barker, Jr., Chief Judge, 25 B.R. 898, holding creditor in contempt pursuant to findings that creditor twice violated...

Jun. 18, 1984 Case —

Mentioned by 107. Kanvick v. City of Reno2008 WL 873085, *3+ , D.Nev.Before the court is Defendants’ (City of Reno, Police et. al., Officer Anthony Elges, Officer Oliver Miller and Officer Robert Knight) Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 42)....

Mar. 27, 2008

Case 14

F.2d

Mentioned by 108. Thurston v. Robison603 F.Supp. 336, 338 , D.Nev.Mother filed pro se civil rights complaint against judge who presided in child custody proceeding, the Attorney General and a court reporter.   Defendants moved to dismiss, which...

Feb. 22, 1985

Case —

Mentioned by 109. City of New York v. Exxon Corp.697 F.Supp. 677, 688 , S.D.N.Y.During suit against users of landfill by city, certain users wished to settle.   In a ruling on consent settlement, the District Court, Conboy, J., held that:  (1) city could enter...

Sep. 29, 1988

Case 6

F.2d

Mentioned by 110. Samuel v. Clark1996 WL 448229, *2+ , E.D.Pa.Pro se plaintiff Earlando Samuel has brought this action against defendants Carolyn Clark, Claire Rosenstein, the law office of Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis, Albert Momjian,...

Aug. 07, 1996

Case 14

F.2d

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844

Treatment Title Date Type Depth Headnote(s)

Mentioned by 111. Cairo v. Skow510 F.Supp. 201, 206 , E.D.Wis.Attorney brought civil rights action against state court judge, and others, and judge moved to dismiss. The District Court, Myron L. Gordon, J., held that: (1) state court judge...

Mar. 25, 1981

Case —

Mentioned by 112. Wilson v. Neu465 N.E.2d 854, 856 , OhioAction was brought against mayor and village for damages for unlawful incarceration. A motion to dismiss in favor of the mayor was granted by the Trial Court, Brown County, and...

Jul. 18, 1984 Case 3

F.2d

— 113. Liability, in federal civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.A. sec. 1983, of private parties who conspire with immune officials, 44 A.L.R. Fed. 547It is the purpose of this annotation to collect and analyze those federal cases which consider the right to relief for deprivation of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the...

1979 ALR — —

— 114. 6 Florida Practice Series s 9:8, Enforcement of laws and protection of the public safetyFlorida Practice SeriesEnforcement of the law and protection of the public safety are generally considered discretionary functions of government for which there has never been a common law duty of care....

2011 Other Secondary Source

— 11

F.2d

— 115. Manual on Employ. Discrim. & Civ. Rights - Fed Cts s 4:116, Intent requirement-Groups held protected-Religious groupsManual on Employ. Discrim. & Civ. Rights - Fed CtsWard v. Connor, 657 F.2d 45 (4th Cir. 1981); Marlowe v. Fisher Body, 489 F.2d 1057, 6 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1083, 6 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) ¶8997 (6th Cir. 1973); Weiss v....

2012 Other Secondary Source

— —

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844

Treatment Title Date Type Depth Headnote(s)

— 116. Police Misconduct: Law and Litigation s 3:2, Absolute immunity defense: General considerations-Judicial immunityPolice Misconduct: Law and LitigationThe circumstances under which judges will be afforded absolute immunity from suit for damages were defined generally in Stump v. Sparkman, where a 15-year-old girl was sterilized...

2011 Other Secondary Source

— —

— 117. THE HIGH PRIESTHOOD: ROOM UNDER THE E PLURIBUS UMBRELLA?, 22 Ariz. St. L.J. 703, 738The ingestion of psychotropic substances to attain an ecstatic or trancelike state is one of mankind’s most venerable traditions. Every human culture of every period in history has...

1990 Law Review — —

— 118. TRADITIONALISM, SECULARISM, AND THE TRANSFORMATIVE DIMENSIONS OF RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS, 1993 B.Y.U. L. Rev. 421, 465Religious organizations and institutions are among the most significant ‘’mediating structures’’ situated between individuals and the ‘’megastructures’’ of state and society. This...

1993 Law Review — —

— 119. TOWARDS A GENERAL THEORY OF THE RELIGION CLAUSES: THE CASE OF CHURCH LABOR RELATIONS AND THE RIGHT TO CHURCH AUTONOMY, 81 Colum. L. Rev. 1373, 1417Secular regulation of churches has increased substantially in recent years, and litigation over the constitutionality of such regulation has increased as well. Regulation of church...

1981 Law Review — —

— 120. GUARDIANSHIP FOR COERCIVELY BATTERED WOMEN: BREAKING THE CONTROL OF THE ABUSER, 88 Geo. L.J. 605, 657+’’The destructive impact of violence in … an intimate relationship may be so complete that the victim is rendered incapable of independent judgment even to save one’s own life.’’...

2000 Law Review — 15

F.2d

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844

Treatment Title Date Type Depth Headnote(s)

— 121. DEVOTION, DAMAGES AND DEPROGRAMMERS: STRATEGIES AND COUNTERSTRATEGIES IN THE CULT WARS, 9 J.L. & Religion 151, 177The venerable law of tort has emerged as an important legal weapon in the long history of church-state wars and religious persecution. Religious groups are being sued for...

1991 Law Review — —

— 122. THE INTRACORPORATE CONSPIRACY DOCTRINE AND 42 U.S.C. S 1985(3): THE ORIGINAL INTENT, 90 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1125, 1184I. Introduction. 1126 II. The History of Section 1985(3). 1129 A. Text. 1130 B. Legislative History. 1132 C. Courts’ Application of Section 1985(3). 1136 D. The Scope of...

1996 Law Review — 4

F.2d

— 123. PRIVATE CONSPIRACIES AND THE CONSTITUTION: A MODERN VISION OF 42 U.S.C. SECTION 1985(3), 64 Tex. L. Rev. 527, 588L1-3Table of Contents I. Introduction: The Southern States After the Civil War. 530 II. Early History of the Ku Klux Klan Act. 534 III. The ‘Dreadful Decade’: The Ku Klux Klan Act...

1985 Law Review — 4

F.2d

— 124. ARBITRATING REINSURANCE DISPUTES; Restore utmost good faith to avoid litigation, 24-FALL Brief 16, 41With the escalation in recent years of disputes between ceding insurers and reinsurers that involve ever-greater sums, new legal concepts and considerations are developing to...

1994 Law Review — —

— 125. MANUAL ON EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION LAW AND CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIONS IN THE FEDERAL COURTS, C334 American Law Institute-American Bar Association 190American Law Institute-American Bar AssociationThe federal civil rights enforcement statutes, now codified at sections 1981, 1983, 1985(3), and 1986 of Title 42 of the United States Code, were originally enacted by Congress in...

1988 Other Secondary Source

— —

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844

Treatment Title Date Type Depth Headnote(s)

— 126. SECTION 1983 CIVIL RIGHTS LITIGATION, 292 Practising Law Institute Litigation and Administrative Practice: Litigation 11Practising Law Institute Litigation and Administrative Practice: LitigationThis book analyzes the most frequently utilized civil rights statute, the Civil Rights Act of 1871. This statute, which is now codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1983, provides that a...

1985 Other Secondary Source

— —

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.