42 U.S.C. § 13981
Transferred
[transferred]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 250
cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1995–2026 · leading case: United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000).
United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000). “Joseph Graham Painter, Jr., filed a brief for respondent Crawford.”
Doe v. Hartz, 970 F. Supp. 1375 (N.D. Iowa 1997). “1436 Violence against women prompted Congress to pass the civil remedies provision of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), 42 U.S.C. § 13981 , on September 13, 1994, as a new, federal weapon -to combat gender-based violence.”
Douglas W. Schwenk v. James Hartford Steve Sinclair Robert Mitchell,opinion, 204 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2000). “” 42 U.S.C. § 13981 (c). The Act expressly applies not only to private but also to public conduct — specifically, to actions taken under color of state law.”
Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005). “42 U. S. C. § 13981 . The remedy was enforceable in both state and federal courts, and generally depended on proof of the violation of a state law.”
City of Chicago v. Int'l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156 (1997). “…the establishment of a divorce, alimony, equitable distribution of marital property, or child custody decree." 42 U. S. C. § 13981 (e)(4).”
Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004). “598 (2000), where we held that a provision of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, 42 U. S. C. § 13981 , lacked congruence and proportionality because it was "not aimed at proscribing discrimination by officials which the Fourteenth Amendment might not itself proscribe," 529…”
Pugliese v. Superior Court, 2007 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 880 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007). “” ( 42 U.S.C. § 13981 (b).) To enforce that right, subdivision (c) declared: “A person .”
Culberson v. Doan, 125 F. Supp. 2d 252 (S.D. Ohio 2001). “Introduction to the Parties and the Complaint The Estate of Clarissa Ann Culberson, Clarissa Culberson’s parents, Debra and Roger Culberson, and her sister, Christina Marie Culberson (hereinafter, collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs” or the “Culber-son Family”) originally…”
Crisonino v. New York City Hous. Auth., 985 F. Supp. 385 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). “§ 1875 ; 2 (ii) violation of the Gender Motivated Violence Act, 42 U.S.C. § 13981 ; (iii) violation of her equal protection rights, presumably pursuant to 42 U.”
Florida Ex Rel. Attorney Gen. v. United States Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 648 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir. 2011). “[76] In enacting the VAWA, Congress made specific findings about the relationship between gender-motivated violence and its substantial effects on interstate commerce.”
Brzonkala v. Va. Polytechnic & State Univ., 935 F. Supp. 779 (W.D. Va. 1996). “, of Title III of the Violence Against Women Act, 42 U.S.C. § 13981 (“VAWA”), and of various state laws.”
City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 524 F.3d 384 (2d Cir. 2008). “Morrison involved the civil remedy provision of the Violence Against Women Act ("VAWA"), 42 U.S.C. § 13981 . In enacting VAWA, Congress found that gender-motivated violence affects interstate commerce "by deterring potential victims from traveling interstate, from engaging in…”
— 42 U.S.C. § 13981(c) — 1 case
Brzonkala v. VPI State Univ (4th Cir. 2000).
— 42 U.S.C. § 13981(d)(2) — 1 case
Brzonkala v. Virginia Polytechnic Inst. & State Univ., 132 F.3d 949 (4th Cir. 1997).
— 42 U.S.C. § 13981(e)(4) — 1 case
Brzonkala v. VPI State Univ (4th Cir. 2000).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.