Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in section 1985 of this title, are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses so to do, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented; and such damages may be recovered in an action on the case; and any number of persons guilty of such wrongful neglect or refusal may be joined as defendants in the action; and if the death of any party be caused by any such wrongful act and neglect, the legal representatives of the deceased shall have such action therefor, and may recover not exceeding $5,000 damages therein, for the benefit of the widow of the deceased, if there be one, and if there be no widow, then for the benefit of the next of kin of the deceased. But no action under the provisions of this section shall be sustained which is not commenced within one year after the cause of action has accrued.
Notes of Decisions
Monell v. New York City Dept. of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978).
· cites it 4× “[20] The amendment in this form was adopted by both Houses of Congress and is now codified as 42 U. S. C. § 1986 . The meaning of the legislative history sketched above can most readily be developed by first considering the debate on the report of the first conference committee.”
Owen v. City of Indep., 445 U.S. 622 (1980).
· cites it 4× “After two revisions by Conference Committees, both Houses passed what is now codified as 42 U. S. C. § 1986 . The final version applied not just to local governments but to all "persons," and it imposed no *672 liability unless the defendant knew that a wrong was "about to be…”
Burnett v. Grattan, 468 U.S. 42 (1984).
· cites it 6× “Only 42 U. S. C. § 1986 contains a statute of limitations.”
Pitts v. City of Cuba, 913 F. Supp. 2d 688 (E.D. Mo. 2012).
· cites it 22× “Another three of the Counts alleged against Defendants (Counts XV, XVI, and XVII) are based on 42 U.S.C. § 1986 , which creates a cause of *704 action for neglect to prevent a conspiracy to- interfere with a person’s civil rights.”
Robertson v. Wegmann, 436 U.S. 584 (1978).
· cites it 4× “And, although the Court does not mention it, any reference to the survival rule provided in 42 U. S. C. § 1986 governing that statute's principle of vicarious liability, would be off point.”
Johnson v. Anhorn, 416 F. Supp. 2d 338 (E.D. Pa. 2006).
· cites it 15× “The plaintiffs also seek recovery under 42 U.S.C. § 1986 against the individual Whitemarsh Township officials, Stemple, and the Township for allegedly neglecting to prevent Stemple and Anhorn’s conspiracy to violate the plaintiffs’ civil rights.”
Lewis v. Bayh, 577 F. Supp. 2d 47 (D.D.C. 2008).
· cites it 5× “Lewis, brings suit against Senator Evan Bayh, cataloguing and attributing ten years of personal difficulties to the defendant’s involvement in a civil conspiracy to violate his Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights pursuant to 42 U.”
Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263 (1993).
· cites it 3× “” 42 U. S. C. § 1986 (3). Petitioners and their amici argue that the intentional destruction of human fetuses, which is the target of their protests, is engaged in not merely by the women who seek and receive abortions, but by the medical and support personnel who provide…”
Callum v. CVS Health Corp., 137 F. Supp. 3d 817 (D.S.C. 2015).
· cites it 5× “of rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1986 , as to all Defendants; (5) discrimination in a.”
Elphage v. Gautreaux, 969 F. Supp. 2d 493 (M.D. La. 2013).
· cites it 5× “§ 1985 and 42 U.S.C. § 1986 are denied as insufficiently briefed.”
Geoffrey M. Radvansky v. City of Olmsted Falls, 395 F.3d 291 (6th Cir. 2005).
· cites it 2× “” 42 U.S.C. § 1986 . Rad- *315 vansky argues that because “Appellees all had knowledge of the wrongful acts, liability is imposed pursuant to 42 U.”
Burnett v. Sharma, 511 F. Supp. 2d 136 (D.D.C. 2007).
· cites it 5× “§ 1985 (Count IV), and 42 U.S.C. § 1986 (Count V). The District of Columbia moves to dismiss plaintiffs Final Amended Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on the ground that it fails to state claims against it upon which relief can be granted.”
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.