MYRTIE HOPKINS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
v.
CONDON WASSON, ROBERT HAMILTON, JOE LEDFORD, J. A. WARE, JOE HARRIS AND LESTER HANEY, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on the civil rights claim and the jury's verdict for the defendants on the slander claim.
A teacher sued school officials, alleging deprivation of civil rights and slander after her employment was terminated. The district court granted summ…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Deprivation Of Civil Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff-Appellant, Myrtie Hopkins, brought this suit against defendants appellees, who were respectively the principal of the Bradley County, Tennessee, High School and members of the county board of education. Plaintiff was a teacher in the county high school, but in 1960 her employment was terminated by the board of education. In a diversity action, she charged, in the first count of her complaint, that defendants had, by terminating her employment and by the utterance of certain slanderous statements, deprived her of civil rights. She relies on Title 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1981-1988, as support for such cause of action. She does not claim that termination of her services violated any contractual or statutory right to be retained as a teacher. In her second count, she charged defendants with common law slander. The District Court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to Count I. The case was tried to a jury under the slander charges in Count II.
The jury returned a verdict for defendants. Plaintiff’s principal claim of error is the District Judge’s holding that Count I did not state a cause of action for deprivation of civil rights.
We affirm this holding upon the District Judge’s Memorandum disposing of defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
Further, we find no reversible error in the District Judge’s refusal to order that plaintiff be furnished a transcript of the trial proceedings at government expense. 227 F.Supp. 278. We likewise find no merit in other claims of error by plaintiff-appellant.
Judgment affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
ORR v. Trinter, 444 F.2d 128 (6th Cir. 1971)
-
Roth v. The Bd. OF Regents OF State Colleges & Roger E. Guiles, 446 F.2d 806 (7th Cir. 1971)
-
Meredith v. Allen Cnty. WAR Mem'l Hosp. Comm'n & Its Individual Members, 397 F.2d 33 (6th Cir. 1968)
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence