civil rights claim in Kansas

1987Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 , 68 L.

1987Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 , 68 L.

1985Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 , 5 L.Ed.2d 492 , 81 S.Ct. 473 (1961), overruled on other grounds, Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 , 56 L.Ed.2d 611 , 98 S.Ct. 2018 (1978); B.C.R.

1985Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 , 5 L.Ed.2d 492 , 81 S.Ct. 473 (1961), overruled on other grounds, Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 , 56 L.Ed.2d 611 , 98 S.Ct. 2018 (1978); B.C.R.

1985Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 , 5 L.Ed.2d 492 , 81 S.Ct. 473 (1961), overruled on other grounds, Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 , 56 L.Ed.2d 611 , 98 S.Ct. 2018 (1978); B.C.R.

1985Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 , 5 L.Ed.2d 492 , 81 S.Ct. 473 (1961), overruled on other grounds, Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 , 56 L.Ed.2d 611 , 98 S.Ct. 2018 (1978); B.C.R.

1983In fact, 42 U.S.C. § 1988 mandates that federal courts apply the law of the state in a § 1983 action ‘so far as the same is not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.’ Although the federal courts in civil 'rights actions apply the state period of limitations for the most analogous cause of action consistent with the facts asserted to support the civil rights claim, Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, 421 U.S. 454, 462 , 44 L.Ed.2d 295 , 95 S.Ct. 1716 (1975), Zuniga v. AMFAC Foods, Inc., 580 F.2d 380 (10th Cir. 1978), there is no bar to a state Supreme Court interpreti

1983In fact, 42 U.S.C. § 1988 mandates that federal courts apply the law of the state in a § 1983 action ‘so far as the same is not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.’ Although the federal courts in civil 'rights actions apply the state period of limitations for the most analogous cause of action consistent with the facts asserted to support the civil rights claim, Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, 421 U.S. 454, 462 , 44 L.Ed.2d 295 , 95 S.Ct. 1716 (1975), Zuniga v. AMFAC Foods, Inc., 580 F.2d 380 (10th Cir. 1978), there is no bar to a state Supreme Court interpreti

1983In fact, 42 U.S.C. § 1988 mandates that federal courts apply the law of the state in a § 1983 action ‘so far as the same is not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.’ Although the federal courts in civil 'rights actions apply the state period of limitations for the most analogous cause of action consistent with the facts asserted to support the civil rights claim, Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, 421 U.S. 454, 462 , 44 L.Ed.2d 295 , 95 S.Ct. 1716 (1975), Zuniga v. AMFAC Foods, Inc., 580 F.2d 380 (10th Cir. 1978), there is no bar to a state Supreme Court interpreti

1982In fact, 42 U.S.C. § 1988 mandates that federal courts apply the law of the state in a § 1983 action “so far as the same is not inconsistent with *560 the Constitution and laws of the United States.” Although the federal courts in civil rights actions apply the state period of limitations for the most analogous cause of action consistent with the facts asserted to support the civil rights claim, Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, 421 U.S. 454, 462 , 44 L.Ed.2d 295 , 95 S.Ct. 1716 (1975), Zuniga v. AMFAC Foods, Inc., 580 F.2d 380 (10th Cir. 1978), there is no bar to a state Supreme Court interp

2001In Patsy v. Board of Regents of Florida, 457 U.S. 496 (1982), we held that plaintiffs need not exhaust state administrative remedies before instituting § 1983 suits in federal court.

1998There is no basis in history or logic to conclude that Congress intended to encourage such claims.” 55 Cal. App. 4th at 37-38 .

1996However, in computing the fee, the court should compensate the prevailing party for all time that is reasonably expended in advancing the successful claims, so that the fee reflects the “reasonable worth of the services rendered in vindication of a plaintiff’s civil rights claim.” Blanchard, 489 U.S. at 96 .

1994The applicable statute of limitations is found in the state law cause of action that most closely compares to the facts supporting the civil rights claim. 231 Kan. at 560-63 .

1994Harris v. Board of Public Utilities of Kansas City, 757 F. Supp. 1185 (D.

1988Gumbhir v. Kansas State Board of Pharmacy, 231 Kan. 507, 514 , 646 P.2d 1078 (1982), cert. denied 459 U.S. 1103 (1983).

1988Gumbhir v. Kansas State Board of Pharmacy, 231 Kan. 507, 514 , 646 P.2d 1078 (1982), cert. denied 459 U.S. 1103 (1983).

1988In Alvarado v. City of Dodge City, 238 Kan. 48, 55 , 708 P.2d 174 (1985), a suit wherein false imprisonment, assault and battery, defamation, and violation of civil rights was alleged, Justice Prager stated: “[T]he Kansas tort actions for false imprisonment, battery, and defamation provide an adequate postdeprivation remedy sufficient to satisfy the requirements of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.

1988In Alvarado v. City of Dodge City, 238 Kan. 48, 55 , 708 P.2d 174 (1985), a suit wherein false imprisonment, assault and battery, defamation, and violation of civil rights was alleged, Justice Prager stated: “[T]he Kansas tort actions for false imprisonment, battery, and defamation provide an adequate postdeprivation remedy sufficient to satisfy the requirements of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.

1988Ed. 2d 662 , 106 S. Ct. 662 (1986), held that when a state provides an adequate remedy for a negligent deprivation of property, that remedy itself constitutes the due process required by the Fourteenth Amendment and a civil rights claim does not lie.

1988Gumbhir v. Kansas State Board of Pharmacy, 231 Kan. 507, 514 , 646 P.2d 1078 (1982), cert. denied 459 U.S. 1103 (1983).

1988The propriety of a state court considering and enforcing federal civil rights statutes has been examined by the Kansas Supreme Court: “In Martinez v. California, 444 U.S. 277 , 62 L.

1988The propriety of a state court considering and enforcing federal civil rights statutes has been examined by the Kansas Supreme Court: “In Martinez v. California, 444 U.S. 277 , 62 L.

1985The court stated that there are two essential elements to a civil rights claim under that statute: “(1) that the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law, and (2) *53 that the conduct deprived a person of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.” 10 Kan.

1985The court stated that there are two essential elements to a civil rights claim under that statute: “(1) that the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law, and (2) *53 that the conduct deprived a person of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.” 10 Kan.

1985In Deary v. Three Un-named Police Officers, 746 F.2d 185 (3d Cir. 1984), the court considered the effect of Harlow on the immunity defense in a civil rights claim based on a warrantless arrest.

1983In fact, 42 U.S.C. § 1988 mandates that federal courts apply the law of the state in a § 1983 action ‘so far as the same is not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.’ Although the federal courts in civil 'rights actions apply the state period of limitations for the most analogous cause of action consistent with the facts asserted to support the civil rights claim, Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, 421 U.S. 454, 462 , 44 L.Ed.2d 295 , 95 S.Ct. 1716 (1975), Zuniga v. AMFAC Foods, Inc., 580 F.2d 380 (10th Cir. 1978), there is no bar to a state Supreme Court interpreti

1973The Supreme Court of the State of Nebraska has held in Midwest Employers Council, Inc. v. City of Omaha, 177 Neb. 877 , 131 N. W. 2d 609 , that matters of fair employment practices and civil rights are matters of statewide and not of local concern.

1973The Supreme Court of the State of Nebraska has held in Midwest Employers Council, Inc. v. City of Omaha, 177 Neb. 877 , 131 N. W. 2d 609 , that matters of fair employment practices and civil rights are matters of statewide and not of local concern.