green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 7×
15.9 score
“it is obvious that the primary and important question in all the cases is the constitutionality of the law; for if the law is unconstitutional none of the prosecutions can stand.”
Treatment trajectory · 1901 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1901
1963
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Ashish Patel, Anverali Satani, Nazira Momin, Minaz Chamadia, and Vijay Lakshmi Yogi v. Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation
liberty of contract is subject to such regulations as the state may reasonably prescribe for the common good and the well-being of society
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Dyer v. East Coast Diners, LLC
individual invasion of individual rights is not the subject-matter of the amendment.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Santos
it is state action of a particular character that is prohibited .
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Myers
it is obvious that the primary and important question in all the cases is the constitutionality of the law; for if the law is unconstitutional none of the prosecutions can stand.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Webster County Lumber Co. v. Wayne
it is state action of a particular character that is prohibited. individual invasion of individual rights is not the subject-matter of the amendment
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Watson v. Fraternal Order of Eagles
congress has a right to enact all necessary and proper laws for the obliteration and prevention of slavery with all its badges and incidents_
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Ivory Watson v. Fraternal Order Of Eagles
congress has a right to enact all necessary and proper laws for the obliteration and prevention of slavery with all its badges and incidents....
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jerry Moore D/B/A the Woodville Inn Company v. Lula M. Gilder and Bernice Gilder
It has long been settled that the Thirteenth Amendment "is not a mere prohibition of State laws establishing or upholding slavery, but an absolute declaration that slavery or involuntary servitude shall not exist in any part of the United States." Memphis v. Greene , 451 U.S. 100, 120 , 101 S.Ct. 1584 , 67 L.Ed.2d 769, 785 (1981) (quoting Civil Rights Cases , 109 U.S. 3, 20 , 3 S.Ct. 18 , 27 L.Ed. 835, 842 (1883)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kessel v. Leavitt
(2×)
For example, in Imperial Colliery Co. v. Fout, 179 W.Va. 776 , 781 n. 13, 373 S.E.2d 489 , 494 n. 13 (1988), we noted: It is now settled law that the[] [Fourteenth] Amendment[] [to the United States Constitution] protect[s] only against "state action", and not against "[i]ndividual invasion of individual rights." Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 11 , 3 S.Ct. 18, 2 [1], 27 L.Ed. 835, 839 (1883)[.] Where the conduct is that of a private entity, "state action" may be found only where the acts in question may fairly be attributed to the state.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lucas v. Townsend
Although freedom of association entails the right to run for office and present one’s views to the electorate, it “does not carry with it any right to be listened to, believed or supported in one’s views.” Id. at 928.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Imperial Colliery Co. v. Fout
It is now settled law that these Amendments protect only against "state action", and not against "[¡Individual invasion of individual rights." Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 11 , 3 S.Ct. 18, 27 , 27 L.Ed. 835, 839 (1883); see also Stephens, Retaliatory Eviction and the Tenant’s Freedom of Speech, 11 Real Estate L.J. 324 (1983).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Feldman v. Jackson Memorial Hospital
Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 11 , 3 S.Ct. 18, 21 , 27 L.Ed. 835, 841 (1883).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Berrios v. Inter American University
Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 11 , 3 S.Ct. 18, 21 , 27 L.Ed. 835, 839 (1883).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
John C. Greco v. Orange Memorial Hospital Corporation
(2×)
Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 11 , 3 S.Ct. 18, 21 , 27 L.Ed. 835, 841 (1883). 8 The problem in state action cases is that demarcation of the spheres, public and private, is a dynamic process, and the boundaries between the two shift and are adumbrated by the various factual situations which are presented for review. 9 As the Court in Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority said, "Only by sifting facts and weighing circumstances can the nonobvious involvement of the State in private conduct be attributed its true significance." 10 It is enlightening, however, to consult the substantial body of…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
McBroome-Bennett Plumbing, Inc. v. Villa France, Inc.
(2×)
Also, Mr. Justice Harlan dissenting, in the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 26 , 3 S.Ct. 18, 33 , 27 L.Ed. 835, 844 (1883), said: It is not the words of the law but the internal sense of it that makes the law. [t]he letter of the law is the body; the sense and reason of the law is the soul. [1] For an analysis of the distinction between these two lines of cases, see United States v. Globe & Rutgers Fire Ins.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hardyman v. Collins
The only way, therefore, in which one private person can deprive another of the equal protee- '■ tion of the laws is by the commission of some offense against the laws which protect the rights of persons, as by theft, burglary, arson, libel, assault, or murder.” 16 8 U.S.C.A. §47 (3). 17 In re Civil Rights Cases, 1883, 109 U.S. 1, 17, 18 , 3 S.Ct. 25 , 27 L.Ed. 835 . 18 Statutes in aid of it condemn, as does the Fourteenth Amendment, all use or abuse of power by “every person, whether natural or juridical, who is the repository of state power”.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Brader v. James
In the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S. 3 , 3 Sup. Ct. 18, 27 L.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Morris
Under the fourteenth, as we have already shown, it must necessarily be and can only be corrective in its character, addressed to counteract and afford relief against state regulations or proceedings.” 109 U. S. 23 , 3 Sup. Ct 30, 27 L.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Great Western Natural Gas & Oil Co. v. Hawkins
Ed. 129 ; s. c. 109 U. S. 1 , 3 Sup. Ct. 150, 27 L.
cited
Cited "see"
Kurzon v. Democratic National Committee
See The Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 11 , 3 S.Ct. 18 , 27 L.Ed. 835 (1883).
cited
Cited "see"
A.M. ex rel. Youngers v. New Mexico Department of Health
See Response at 6, 11 (citing The Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 , 3 S.Ct. 18 , 27 L.Ed. 835 (1883)).
cited
Cited "see"
Gonzalez-Maldonado v. MMM Health Care, Inc.
See Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 , 3 S.Ct. 18 , 27 L.Ed. 835 (1883).
discussed
Cited "see"
Hopkins v. Deveaux
See Generally Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 , 3 S.Ct. 18 , 27 L.Ed. 835 (1883); 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (requiring that alleged violations be under color of law.) There can be exceptions to this rule, when, for example, there is a symbiotic relationship between the private entity and the state; when the former is acting jointly with the state in the performance of a public function; or when the alleged conduct shares a close nexus with the state.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Smith
See In re Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 8-9 , 3 S.Ct. 18 , 27 L.Ed. 835 (1883).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Brown
See In re Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 , 8-9, 3 S.Ct. 18 , 27 L.Ed. 835 (1883).
cited
Cited "see"
Zinnia I. Chen v. Hon. Kenneth R. Lester, Jr.
See Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 25-26 , 3 S.Ct. 18, 32 , 27 L.Ed. 835 (1883).
cited
Cited "see"
In re the Marriage of King
See Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 , 3 S. Ct. 18 , 27 L.
cited
Cited "see"
King v. King
See Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 , 3 S.Ct. 18 , 27 L.Ed. 835 (1883).
discussed
Cited "see"
Medvalusa Health Programs, Inc. v. Memberworks, Inc.
(2×)
Since the civil rights cases; see United States v. Stanley, 109 U.S. 3, 4 , 3 S.Ct. 18 , 27 L.Ed. 835 (1883); the United States Supreme Court has maintained that, against private conduct, "however discriminatory or wrongful ... the [f]ourteenth [a]mendment offers no shield." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345, 349 , 95 S.Ct. 449 , 42 L.Ed.2d 477 (1974).
discussed
Cited "see"
Leidy v. Borough of Glenolden
See Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 11-18 , 3 S.Ct. 18 , 27 L.Ed. 835 (1883) (deciding that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees individual liberty against governmental and not private invasion).
cited
Cited "see"
Bridenbaugh v. O'BANNON
See dissent of first Justice Harlan in Civil Rights Cases, In re, 109 U.S. 3 , 3 S.Ct. 18 , 27 L.Ed. 835 (1883).
discussed
Cited "see"
ca4 1999
See id. at 2164-66 (detailing the federalism rationale underlying the restriction of the Fourteenth Amendment to state action) In relying in its Section 5 analysis extensively upon the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 , 3 S.Ct. 18 , 27 L.Ed. 835 (1883), and United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 , 1 S.Ct. 601 , 27 L.Ed. 290 (1883), I do not understand the majority opinion either to adopt or endorse the discredited holdings in those cases.
discussed
Cited "see"
Cornelisen v. Gunnarson
See, Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345, 349 , 95 S.Ct. 449 , 42 L.Ed.2d 477 (1974) (deprivations by the state are subject to constitutional scrutiny, but not “private conduct, ‘however, discriminatory or wrongful,’ ”) (quoting the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 , 3 S.Ct. 18 , 27 L.Ed. 835 (1883)).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Frank Lafayette Bird
(2×)
See The Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 , 3 S.Ct. 18 , 27 L.Ed. 835 (1883).
discussed
Cited "see"
Kish v. Verniero (In Re Kish)
See id. at -, 117 S.Ct. at 2166 (“The power to ‘legislate generally upon’ life, liberty, and property, as opposed to the ‘power to provide modes of redress’ against offensive state action was ‘repugnant’ to the Constitution.”) (quoting the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 15 , 3 S.Ct. 18, 24 , 27 L.Ed. 835 (1883)).
cited
Cited "see"
Shuford v. Alabama State Board of Education
See Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 , 3 S.Ct. 18 , 27 L.Ed. 835 (1883).
discussed
Cited "see"
Cremin v. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc.
See The Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 , 3 S.Ct. 18 , 27 L.Ed. 835 (1883); Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 13 , 68 S.Ct. 836, 842 , 92 L.Ed. 1161 (1948); Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345, 349 , 95 S.Ct. 449, 452-53 , 42 L.Ed.2d 477 (1974); Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1002 , 102 S.Ct. 2777, 2784-85 , 73 L.Ed.2d 534 (1982); NCAA v. Tarkanian, 488 U.S. 179, 191 , 109 S.Ct. 454, 461-62 , 102 L.Ed.2d 469 (1988).
cited
Cited "see"
Mann v. Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office
See Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 , 3 S.Ct. 18 , 27 L.Ed. 835 (1883).
discussed
Cited "see"
Irene Mojica, Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Gannett Company, Inc., Owner of Wgci-Fm Radio Station, Defendant-Appellant/cross-Appellee
(2×)
See The Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 16-17 , 3 S.Ct. 18, 24-26 , 27 L.Ed. 835 (1883); Corrigan v. Buckley, 271 U.S. 323, 331 , 46 S.Ct. 521, 524 , 70 L.Ed. 969 (1926); Hurd v. Hodge, 334 U.S. 24, 31 , 68 S.Ct. 847, 851 , 92 L.Ed. 1187 (1948).
discussed
Cited "see"
Santiago v. New York State Department of Correctional Services
See The Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 20 , 3 S.Ct. 18, 27 , 27 L.Ed. 835 (1883) (the Fourteenth Amendment “is undoubtedly self-executing without any ancillary legislation”); Gentile v. Wallen, 562 F.2d 193, 196 (2d Cir.1977) (upholding valid cause of action directly under Fourteenth Amendment with citations to “at least five other circuits [which] have recognized causes of action directly under the Fourteenth Amendment”).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. State of La.
See The Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 11 , 3 S.Ct. 18, 21 , 27 L.Ed. 835 (1883). [31] State of Alabama, 828 F.2d at 1546-51 ; see United States Department of Transportation v. Paralyzed Veterans of America, 477 U.S. 597, 604 , 106 S.Ct. 2705, 2711 , 91 L.Ed.2d 494 (1986); Grove City, 465 U.S. at 566 , 104 S.Ct. at 1218 ("Title IX was patterned after Title VI"); see also Board of Public Instruction of Taylor County, Florida v. Finch, 414 F.2d 1068, 1076-78 (5th Cir.1969), cited with approval in North Haven Board of Education v. Bell, 456 U.S. 512, 538 , 102 S.Ct. 1912, 1926 , 72 L.Ed.2d 299 (…
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Louisiana
See The Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 11 , 3 S.Ct. 18, 21 , 27 L.Ed. 835 (1883). .
cited
Cited "see"
Queen v. West Virginia University Hospitals, Inc.
Yanero v. Fox, 163 W.Va. 222 , 232 n. 7, 256 S.E.2d 751 , 756 n. 7 (1979); see Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 11 , 3 S.Ct. 18, 21 , 27 L.Ed. 835 (1883).
cited
Cited "see"
Jenner v. Shepherd
See Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 , 3 S.Ct. 18 , 27 L.Ed. 835 (1883).
cited
Cited "see"
Jeetendra Bhandari v. First National Bank of Commerce
See Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 16 , 3 S.Ct. 18, 24 , 27 L.Ed. 835 (1883).
discussed
Cited "see"
Quinn v. Kent General Hospital, Inc.
See Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 11-14 , 3 S.Ct. 18, 21-24 , 27 L.Ed. 835 (1883); Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 13-23 , 68 S.Ct. 836, 842-47 , 92 L.Ed. 1161 (1948); Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715, 721-26 , 81 S.Ct. 856, 859-62 , 6 L.Ed.2d 45 (1961); Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis, 407 U.S. 163, 171-179 , 92 S.Ct. 1965, 1970-1974 , 32 L.Ed.2d 627 (1972); Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345, 351-59 , 95 S.Ct. 449, 453-58 , 42 L.Ed.2d 477 (1974).
discussed
Cited "see"
Smith v. Duquesne University
See Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830, 837 , 102 S.Ct. 2764, 2769 , 73 L.Ed.2d 418 (1982), citing, Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 11 , 3 S.Ct. 18, 21 , 27 L.Ed. 835 (1883); Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 13 , 68 S.Ct. 836, 842 , 92 L.Ed. 1161 (1948).
discussed
Cited "see"
Felton v. Trustees of California State Universities & Colleges
See Ginn v. Mathews, 533 F.2d 477, 479 (9th Cir.1976) (citing Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 13 , 68 S.Ct. 836, 842 , 92 L.Ed. 1161 (1948) and Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 , 3 S.Ct. 18 , 27 L.Ed. 835 (1882).
discussed
Cited "see"
ca9 1983
See Ginn v. Mathews, 533 F.2d 477, 479 (9th Cir.1976) (citing Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 13 , 68 S.Ct. 836, 842 , 92 L.Ed. 1161 (1948) and Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 , 3 S.Ct. 18 , 27 L.Ed. 835 (1882).
Osborne
v.
Adams County
v.
Adams County
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 15, 1883.
Harlan.
Cited by 13 opinions | Published
Mr. Justice Harlan
delivered the opinion of the court.
This case was decided at the last term of this court, and is reported in 106 U. S., 181. We there held that a steam gristmill was not a work of internal improvement, within the meaning of the statute of Nebraska, approved February 15, 1869, authorizing counties, cities, and precincts of organized counties “ to issue bonds to aid in the construction of any railroad or other work of internal improvement.” It was also said that the court was not justified by anything in Township of Burlington v. Beasley, 94 U. S. 310, or in the decisions of the[*2] courts of Nebraska, “in holding that a steam or other kind of grist-mill is of the class of internal improvements which municipal townships in that State are empowered, by the statute in question, to aid by an issue of bonds.”
A petition for rehearing ivas filed near the close of the last term, calling our attention to the fact that the Supreme Court óf Nebraska had then recently decided that a grist-mill operated by water power was a work of internal improvement within the meaning of the before-mentioned statute. The judgment was suspended in .order that appellee might have an opportunity of presenting the full text of the opinion of the State court. That has been done at the present term. The case to which reference is made is Traver v. Merrick County, the opinion in which was not filed in the State court until after the close of our last term.
It is quite true, as claimed by counsel for appellee, that the • State court does, in that case, rule, that a water grist-mill is a work of internal improvement within the meaning of the statute in question. But the court takes care to say :
“ In onr view there is a clear distinction betweén aiding the development of the' water power of the State — a power that is continuing in its nature and may be used without cost'or expense, and must be used at certain points on a stream where a dam can be erected and power obtained — and a mill propelled by steam, that must be attended with' a continuous cost for fuel, and may at any time be moved to another locality.”
So far from the decision of the State court furnishing any ground for a rehearing, it is' an authority in support of that construction of the act of 1867 which excludes steam grist-mills from the class of internal improvements in aid of which counties, cities, and precincts of organized counties- are, by that statute, authorized to issue their bonds.
The rehearing is denied.