EGAN
v.
CITY OF AURORA ET AL.
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.
A municipality is not a 'person' under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but claims for deprivation of Fourteenth Amendment rights against individual officials must be reconsidered.
Petitioner, a mayor, sued the City of Aurora and its officials for deprivation of constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1985. The Distric…
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 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
Petitioner, Mayor of the City of Aurora, brought this suit in the District Court against the City and certain of its officials for damages for deprivation of rights secured to him by the Constitution. He alleges unlawful action by the city and by individuals who are or who purport to be its officials (see 42 U. S. C. § 1983) and a conspiracy (see 42 U. S. C. § 1985). The District Court granted the motions to dismiss, 174 F. Supp. 794, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, 275 F. 2d 377, both decisions being prior to our opinion in Monroe v. Pape, ante, p. 167.
The dismissal as to the City of Aurora was correct, for we held in Monroe v. Pape, supra, that a municipality was not a “person” within the meaning of 42 U.
S. C. § 1983. Insofar as any right claimed stems from petitioner’s status as mayor under Illinois law it is precluded from assertion here by Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U. S.
1. But as we read the complaint, the rights which petitioner claims he was deprived of are those that derive from the Fourteenth Amendment, particularly the right of free speech and assembly. The opinion of the Court of Appeals is not explicit as respects the grounds for dismissing the complaint under 42 U.
S. C. § 1985. See Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U. S. 1; Collins v. Hardyman, 341 U. S.
651. The Court of Appeals, in affirming the judgment of the District Court on grounds other than the ones relied on by that court, seems to have decided the case on a construction of 42 U.
S. C. § 1983 that apparently is incon-. sistent with the view we took in Monroe v. Pape, supra.
. Accordingly we grant the petition for certiorari, affirm the judgment in favor of the City of Aurora, vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals in favor of the individual respondents and remand the cause as respects them to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (19 total)
-
Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (U.S. 1962)…s v. Jeannette, 319 U. S. 157; Stefanelli v. Minard, 342 U. S. 117; cf. Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U. S. 536; Nixon v. Condon, 286 U. S. 73; Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U. S. 1; Smith v. Allwright, 321 U. S. 649; Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167; Egan v. Aurora, 365 U. S. 514. Since that case was not brought to the Court until after the election had been held, the Court cited not only Wood v. Broom, but also directed dismissal for mootness, citing Brownlow v. Schwartz, 261 U. S. 216. Compare Boeing Aircraft Co. v. King…
-
Bauers v. Heisel, 361 F.2d 581 (3d Cir. 1966)…ve been sued under the Civil Rights Act, R.S. § 1979, have likewise been held immune. Laughlin v. Rosenman, 82 U.S.App.D.C. 164, 163 F. 2d 838 (1947); Kenney v. Fox, supra, and other cases cited in note 7, supra. The case of Egan v. City of Aurora, 365 U.S. 514, 81 S.Ct. 684, 5 L.Ed.2d 741 (1961), does not require a contrary result. In that Civil Rights Act case, the Supreme Court in a per curiam opinion affirmed in part and vacated and remanded to the court of appeals the causes against certain individual…
-
Mrs. Lola Hornsby v. Allen, 326 F.2d 605 (5th Cir. 1964)…mpton, supra, and other cases). Monroe v. Pape upheld a complaint alleging damages from an illegal search and seizure under color of state and municipal statutes, customs and usages but not with any specific intent. Accord, Egan v. City of Aurora, 365 U.S. 514, 81 S.Ct. 684, 5 L.Ed.2d 741 (1961). It is, therefore, now recognized that no specific intent to deprive a plaintiff of his civil rights need be alleged, see Stringer v. Dilger, 313 F. 2d 536, 540 (10th Cir. 1963), and that an intentional and purp…
Previewing 3 of 19 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1944)
- Collins v. Hardyman, 341 U.S. 651 (U.S. 1951)
- Egan v. City OF Aurora, 275 F.2d 377 (7th Cir. 1960)