James A. Howard v. Colbert Higgins, Sheriff, Murray Cnty., Sulphur, Oklahoma, 379 F.2d 227 (10th Cir. 1967). · Go Syfert
Search
James A. Howard v. Colbert Higgins, Sheriff, Murray Cnty., Sulphur, Oklahoma, 379 F.2d 227 (10th Cir. 1967). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“section 1343(3) confers federal jurisdiction without regard to the amount in controversy over claims arising under section 1983 to redress the deprivation of civil rights.”
40 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 26 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Barnett v. Broadwell (cod, 2021-11-19)
Treatment trajectory · 1968 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1968 1997 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Barnett v. Broadwell
D. Colo. · 2021 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
section 1343(3) confers federal jurisdiction without regard to the amount in controversy over claims arising under section 1983 to redress the deprivation of civil rights.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Lingo v. Boone
N.D. Cal. · 1975 · confidence medium
See Cisneros v. Cavell, 437 F.2d 1202, 1203 (3 Cir. 1971); Howard v. Higgins, 379 F.2d 227, 228 (10 Cir. 1967).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Walsh v. City of Long Beach
E.D.N.Y · 1974 · confidence medium
Howard v. Higgins, 379 F.2d 227, 228 (10 Cir. 1967); McManigal v. Simon, 382 F.2d 408, 410 (7 Cir. 1967); Ream v. Handley, 359 F. 2d 728, 731 (7 Cir. 1966); Abernathy v. Carpenter, 208 F.Supp. 793 (W.D.Mo. 1962), affirmed 373 U.S. 241 , 83 S.Ct. 1295 , 10 L.Ed.2d 409 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Alfred J. Cisneros v. A. C. Cavell, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Rockview, Centre County, Pennsylvania
3rd Cir. · 1971 · confidence medium
Urbano v. Calissi, 384 F.2d 909, 910-911 (3rd Cir. 1967), cert. den. 391 U.S. 925 , 88 S.Ct. 1824 , 20 L.Ed.2d 664 (1968); Howard v. Higgins, 379 F.2d 227, 228 (10th Cir. 1967).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wynn v. Indiana State Department of Public Welfare
N.D. Ind. · 1970 · confidence medium
Howard v. Higgins, 379 F.2d 227, 228 (10th Cir. 1967); McManigal v. Simon, 382 F.2d 408, 410 (7th Cir. 1967); Ream v. Handley, 359 F.2d 728, 731 (7th Cir. 1966); Abernathy v. Carpenter, 208 F.Supp. 793 W.D.Mo. 1962), aff’d 373 U.S. 241 , 83 S.Ct. 1295 , 10 L.Ed.2d 409 (1963).” Bradford Audio Corp. v. Pious, 392 F.2d 67, 72 (2d Cir. 1968).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Penn v. Stumpf
N.D. Cal. · 1970 · confidence medium
See Bradford Audio Corporation v. Pious, 392 F.2d 67, 72 (2d Cir. 1968); Bussie v. Long, 383 F.2d 766, 769 (5tli Cir. 1967); McManigal v. Simon, 382 F.2d 408, 410 (7th Cir. 1967), cert. den. 390 U.S. 980 , 88 S.Ct. 1099 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1276 (1968), reh. den. 390 U.S. 1036 , 88 S.Ct. 1405 , 20 L.Ed.2d 297 (1968); Howard v. Higgins, 379 F.2d 227, 228 (10th Cir. 1967); Ream v. Handley, 359 F.2d 728, 731 (7th Cir. 1966); Martin v. King, 298 F.Supp. 420, 421 (D.Colo.1969); Booth v. General Dynamics Corporation, 264 F.Supp. 465, 470 (N.D.Ill.1967); Abernathy v. Carpenter, 208 F.Supp. 793, 795 (W.D.Mo.1…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bradford Audio Corporation v. Edward Pious, Individually and as Purported Receiver of Bradford Audio Corporation
2d Cir. · 1968 · confidence medium
Howard v. Higgins, 379 F.2d 227, 228 (10 Cir. 1967); McManigal v. Simon, 382 F.2d 408, 410 (7 Cir. 1967); Ream v. Handley, 359 F.2d 728, 731 (7 Cir. 1966); Abernathy v. Carpenter, 208 F.Supp. 793 (W.D.Mo. 1962), affirmed, 373 U.S. 241 , 83 S.Ct. 1295 , 10 L.Ed.2d 409 (1963).
discussed Cited "see" Stambler v. Dillon
S.D.N.Y. · 1969 · signal: accord · confidence high
See, Bradford Audio Corp. v. Pious, supra, 392 F.2d at 72 ; accord, Howard v. Higgins, 379 F.2d 227 (10th Cir. 1967); Ream v. Handley, 359 F.2d 728 (7th Cir. 1966); Abernathy v. Carpenter, 208 F.Supp. 793 (W.D.Mo.1962), aff’d, 373 U.S. 241 , 83 S.Ct. 1295 , 10 L.Ed.2d 409 (1963).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Lung v. Jones
D.N.M. · 1971 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also, Howard v. Higgins, 379 F.2d 227 (10th Cir. 1967).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
James A. HOWARD, Appellant,
v.
Colbert HIGGINS, Sheriff, Murray County, Sulphur, Oklahoma, Appellee
9115_1.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Jun 1, 1967.
379 F.2d 227
Norman H. Glickman, Denver, Colo., for appellant., No appearance for appellee.
Murrah, Lewis, Christensen.
Cited by 37 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

This action was brought by Howard under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, with federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3). The substance of the pro se claim is that the defendant, while acting as the sheriff of Murray County, Oklahoma, deprived the claimant of personal property valued at $500 while the claimant was in the sheriff’s custody.

The trial court dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdictional amount required by statute, but granted leave to appeal in forma pauperis. An appointed attorney filed a brief and argued the case for Howard. The defendant, Higgins, did not appear but filed a pro se response in which he stated, among other things, that he is no longer the sheriff of Murray County or in custody or control of the property alleged to have been taken by him from the claimant while he was in custody. He says that all of the property taken is now in the custody of the present sheriff and will be returned to Howard if he will appear to claim it.

But we do not reach the question of mootness for we agree with the trial court that jurisdiction is wholly lacking. Section 1343(3) confers federal jurisdiction without regard to the amount in controversy over claims arising under Section 1983 to redress the deprivation of civil rights. Section 1983 has been historically construed not to embrace as a civil right the deprivation of a mere property right as in this case. See Ream v. Handley, 7 Cir., 359 F.2d 728, and cases cited. But see Joe Louis Milk Co. v. Hershey, D.C., 243 F.Supp. 351, and cases cited. Inasmuch as the claim here is to redress the deprivation of a property right only, jurisdiction under Section 1343(3) is lacking. Abernathy v. Carpenter, D.C., 208 F.Supp. 793, affm’d, 373 U.S. 241, 83 S.Ct. 1295, 10 L.Ed.2d 409.

If the asserted claim can be said to arise under the Constitution or laws of the United States, jurisdiction must be found in 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and the court correctly dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdictional amount. The judgment is affirmed.