42 U.S.C. § 1893
Repealed. Pub. L. 93–608, § 1(1), Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1967
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1972–2025 · leading case: Holmes v. Silver Cross Hosp. of Joliet, Illinois, 340 F. Supp. 125 (N.D. Ill. 1972).
Holmes v. Silver Cross Hosp. of Joliet, Illinois, 340 F. Supp. 125 (N.D. Ill. 1972). “If it can ultimately be shown that the doctors herein did not act in joint participation with any agent of the state, the Duzynski line of cases will be controlling and the doctors will be deemed, at most, to be private actors conspiring amongst themselves to deprive the…”
Dintino v. Echols, 243 F. Supp. 2d 255 (E.D. Pa. 2003). “The complaint contained the following allegations: 1) COUNT I: that the individual defendants lacked probable cause to arrest, and that arresting plaintiff in the absence of probable cause constitutes unlawful seizure, false arrest, malicious prosecution and illegal…”
Doe v. Boyertown Area Sch. Dist., 10 F. Supp. 3d 637 (E.D. Pa. 2014). “Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1893 . . Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.”
Samuel v. Busnuck, 423 F. Supp. 99 (D. Maryland 1976). “§ 1983 and mere misconduct or wrongful action which constitutes an ordinary tort, and is to be redressed by use of ordinary tort remedies rather than by an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1893 . Screws v. U.S., 325 U.”
Vetenshtein Ex Rel. Vetenshtein v. City of Philadelphia, 755 A.2d 62 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2000). “Appellants also argue that notwithstanding the deletion of any explicit reference in the second amended complaint to 42 U.S.C. § 1893 or §§ 1981-1988, they have sufficiently pleaded a federal claim for a civil rights violation in the second amended complaint.”
Franke v. Geico Causality Co. (S.D. Ind. 2022). “His Complaint asserts seven claims against GEICO: Counts 1, 2, 3 and 5 allege violations of his rights pursuant to the First and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution ( 42 U.S.C. §1893 ); Count 4 alleges violation of the HIPAA; Counts 6 and 7 allege state law…”
Gorenc v. Klaassen (D. Kan. 2020). “2018) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1893 ). To state a viable § 1983 claim upon which relief may be granted, plaintiffs must allege that: (1) they have been deprived of a federally protected right and (2) “the person who has deprived [them] of that right acted under color of state or…”
Burns v. Lincoln Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't (D.N.M. 2024). “As to the Sheriffs Department, the FAC asserts Fourteenth Amendment and Fourth Amendment claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1893 . Id. ¶¶ 19-36 ; Doc. 19 at 3 (In the present case, Plaintiff alleges 42 U.”
Arthur v. Krause (W.D. Mich. 2025). “Failure to State a Claim Defendants argue Arthur failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1893 for Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations.”
Union Insular de Trabajadores Industriales y Construcciones Electricas v. Autoridad de las Fuentes Fluviales de Puerto Rico, 431 F. Supp. 435 (D.P.R. 1975). “As will be seen in this opinion, Plaintiffs’ claim of an action pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1893 in reality concerns a labor dispute.”
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.