How cited: Elliott v. Chrysler Financial · Go Syfert

Elliott v. Chrysler Financial (2005)

green · 9 citation events across 5 courts. Showing the 8 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Rule Authority · D. Colo.
P. 12(b)(1)) (citing Elliot v. Chrysler Fin., 149 F. App’x 766, 768-69 (10th Cir. 2005) (unpublished); West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988)).
unpublished
Quote Authority · E.D. Okla. · signal: see
See Elliott v. Chrysler Fin., 149 F. App’x 766, 769 (10th Cir. 2005) (“The district court also considered the possibility of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 , but correctly found jurisdiction lacking because the complaint failed to allege jurisdictional facts.”); Joplin v. Capstone Real Est.
“The district court also considered the possibility of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 , but correctly found jurisdiction lacking because the complaint failed to allege jurisdictional facts.”
Rule Authority · D. Colo.
“To establish subject matter jurisdiction under § 1343, the plaintiff must show that the defendant acted ‘under color of any state law.’” Elliott v. Chrysler Fin., 149 F. App’x 766, 768 (10th Cir. 2005) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (a)(3)).
quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (a)(3)
Rule Authority · Ohio Ct. App.
(C.A.10, 2005), 149 Fed.Appx. 766, 768 (“Merely following a procedure established by state law does not transform a private party’s activity into state action”); Pahls v. Kesselring (C.A.6, 2000), 230 F.3d 1359 (table) (“simply invoking the authority of a valid state law does not amount to state action for § 1983 purposes”).
Cited · 10th Cir. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion
See Elliott v. Chrysler Fin., 149 Fed.Appx. 766, 768-69 (10th Cir.2005); see also Monks v. Hetherington, 573 F.2d 1164, 1167 (10th Cir.1978) ("There is no demonstration of state action and, therefore, no basis for civil rights jurisdiction [pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (3) ] in the case at bar.”).
Cited · D. Kan. · signal: see
See Elliot v. Chrysler Financial, 149 F. App’x 766 (10th Cir. 2005) (discussing jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ). and applications (id. at 23, 40-47, 56, 66-68, 97-98); filings from an administrative proceeding (id. at 58-59, 61-62, 70-72, 75-76, 78-80); and what appears to be correspondence.
discussing jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Cited · D. Kan. · signal: see
See Elliott v. Chrysler Fin., 149 F. App’x 766, 768 (10th Cir. 2005).
green Matthews v. Kofol (2020)
Cited · D. Colo. · signal: see
See Elliott v. Chrysler Fin., 149 F. App’x 766, 767-68 (10th Cir. 2005) (unpublished).
unpublished