Elder v. Pate, 21 F.3d 1121 (10th Cir. 1994). · Go Syfert
Search
Elder v. Pate, 21 F.3d 1121 (10th Cir. 1994). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
61 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Bernard v. City of San Diego (casd, 2021-07-29)
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994 2010 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Bernard v. City of San Diego
S.D. Cal. · 2021 · confidence medium
See Watison, 668 F.3d at 1112; Wilhelm, 680 21 F.3d at 1121.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Keavney v. County of San Diego
S.D. Cal. · 2020 · confidence medium
Id. 18 For all these reasons, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety for 19 failing to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 20 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1); Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126-27 ; Wilhelm, 680 21 F.3d at 1121. 22 / / / 23 III.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Kinser v. County of San Diego
S.D. Cal. · 2020 · confidence medium
See 20 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 (e)(2)(b)(ii), 1915A(b)(1); Watison, 668 F.3d at 1112; Wilhelm, 680 21 F.3d at 1121. 22 E.
cited Cited "see" Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. v. Kansas Department of Transportation
D. Kan. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gorsline v. State, Dept. of Transp., 1993 WL 455254 (D.Kan.1993), aff'd, 21 F.3d 1121 , 1994 WL 118174 (10th Cir.1994); cf. Logistics Exp.
cited Cited "see" Miner v. Beneficial Mortgage Co. of Kansas, Inc. (In Re Miner)
Bankr. D. Kan. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Pruitt v. Kansas, 364 F.Supp.2d 1264 , 1269 n. 14 (D.Kan.2005) (citing Madrigal v. IBP, Inc., 21 F.3d 1121, 1121 (10th Cir. 1994)). 40 .
cited Cited "see" Gagan v. Norton
10th Cir. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gagan v. Gunter, (unpublished Order & Judgment), 21 F.3d 1121 (10th Cir. Mar. 31, 1994).
discussed Cited "see" Gagan v. Norton
10th Cir. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gagan v. Gunter, (unpublished Order & Judgment), 21 F.3d 1121 (10th Cir. Mar. 31, 1994). 5 The gist of the plaintiff's complaint in this Sec. 1983 case is that the defendants' actions in countermanding the state court judge's order to prepare the transcripts was essentially a violation of his "constitutional" right of access to the courts.
discussed Cited "see" Malek v. Martin Marietta Corp.
D. Kan. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See Madrigal v. IBP, Inc., 811 F.Supp. 612, 615 (D.Kan.1993), aff'd, 21 F.3d 1121 (10th Cir.1994) (Table); Stuart v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 753 F.Supp. 317, 325 (D.Kan.1990), aff'd, 936 F.2d 584 (10th Cir.1991) (Table).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Pahulu v. University of Kansas
D. Kan. · 1995 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g, McGee v. Rice, 21 F.3d 1121 (10th Cir.1994) (unpublished); Chandler v. City of Dallas, 2 F.3d 1385, 1391 (5th Cir.1993), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1386 , 128 L.Ed.2d 61 (1994); Farley v. Gibson Container, Inc., 891 F.Supp. 322 , 325 n. 1 (N.D.Miss.1995); Dutton, 859 F.Supp. at 504 .
Morris Elder, Patsy Elder, Harry Eugene Elder, Herman Dale Elder, Carolyn Jones, Tracie Elder, Jimmy Elder, Olden Cranfield
v.
W.E. Pate, Ii, David Pate Dennis Bass, Dale Whitecotten, John Russell Campbell, Dean Williams
93-7044.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Apr 18, 1994.
21 F.3d 1121
Published

21 F.3d 1121

NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or further order.

Morris ELDER, Patsy Elder, Harry Eugene Elder, Herman Dale
Elder, Carolyn Jones, Tracie Elder, Jimmy Elder,
Olden Cranfield, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
W.E. PATE, II, David Pate; Dennis Bass, Dale Whitecotten,
John Russell Campbell, Dean Williams, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 93-7044.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

April 18, 1994.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT[1]

1

Before KELLY and BARRETT, Circuit Judges, and THEIS, District Judge.[2]

2

Plaintiffs appeal from the district court's grant of summary judgment in their civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.1983. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291 and we affirm.

3

The parties are familiar with the facts and issues presented by this appeal and we will not restate them here. We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standard as the district court. MacDonald v. Eastern Wyoming Mental Health Ctr., 941 F.2d 1115, 1117 (10th Cir.1991).

4

The district court based its summary judgment on the cloak of qualified immunity provided Defendants in carrying out an order of the court. See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 813-20 (1982); Henriksen v. Bentley, 644 F.2d 852, 854-56 (10th Cir.1981). We have reviewed Plaintiffs' arguments on appeal and find them all to be without merit. There is no evidence in the record of Defendants overstepping their authority in performing necessary actions in furtherance of the court's directive. Accordingly, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment.

5

AFFIRMED.

1

This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of the court's General Order. 151 F.R.D. 470 (10th Cir.1993)

2

The Honorable Frank G. Theis, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation