42 U.S.C. § 1984
Omitted
[omitted]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 42
cases (14 in the last 5 years), 1964–2025 · leading case: Dennison v. Pennsylvania Dep't of Corr., 268 F. Supp. 2d 387 (M.D. Penn. 2003).
Dennison v. Pennsylvania Dep't of Corr., 268 F. Supp. 2d 387 (M.D. Penn. 2003). “Judgment is GRANTED to all remaining defendants on Dennison’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1984 . 3. Judgment is GRANTED to all remaining individual defendants on Denni-son’s section 1983 official capacity suits.”
Mcdermott v. Montana Dep't of Corr., 2001 MT 134 (Mont. 2001). “The inmate filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1984 suit against prison officials and, as part of a discussion on qualified *998 immunity, the Court addressed the question of inmates' liberty interest in accumulating good time credits.”
Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Johnson, 740 So. 2d 392 (Ala. 1999). “2d 302 (1984) (action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1984 ); Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc.”
United States Ex Rel. Hoss v. Cuyler, 452 F. Supp. 256 (E.D. Pa. 1978). “In the complaint, Hoss also invoked 42 U.S.C. § 1984 , which is the codified version of § 5 of the Act of Mar.”
Jacquelyn N'Jai v. Manuel Zuniga, Jr., 386 F. App'x 141 (3rd Cir. 2010). “The District Court also read N'Jai's complaints as raising claims relating to the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, as well as 42 U.S.C. §§ 1984 and 1987. We will not address such claims, however, because N’Jai does not appear to pursue them on appeal.”
Frank J. PARISE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DELTA AIRLINES, INC., Defendant-Appellee, 141 F.3d 1463 (11th Cir. 1998). “10 (l)(a) and 42 U.S.C. § 1984 . 1 Delta *1465 removed the ease to federal district court on the basis of diversity of citizenship; the basis for removal is not at issue here.”
Morris v. Carter Global Lee, Inc., 997 F. Supp. 2d 27 (D.D.C. 2013). “Next, Plaintiff clearly has no possible claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1984 as this provision has been omitted from the U.”
Zinnia I. Chen v. Hon. Kenneth R. Lester, Jr., 364 F. App'x 531 (11th Cir. 2010). “Plaintiffs’ Claims Under 42 U.S.C. § 1984 Sections 1 and 2 of § 1984 were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.”
Chambliss v. Foote, 421 F. Supp. 12 (E.D. La. 1976). “42 U.S.C. §§ 1984 , 1987 and 1988, also relied upon by the plaintiff in her complaint, are not substantive in nature or are inapplicable here.”
Ramirez-Lluveras v. Pagan-Cruz, 833 F. Supp. 2d 165 (D.P.R. 2011). “This is a civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1984 (“section 1983”) and Article 1802 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code, P.”
Pugliano v. Staziak, 231 F. Supp. 347 (W.D. Pa. 1964). “Nor is 42 U.S.C. § 1984 relevant. We are, therefore, concerned solely with the applicability of §§ 1983 and 1985.”
Mills v. Nat'l Distillers Prods. Co., 435 F. Supp. 72 (S.D. Ohio 1977). “Jurisdiction is premised upon 42 U.S.C. §§ 1984 and 2000e-5 and 29 U.S.”
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.