MEYERSON

v.

ARIZONA ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234 (U.S. 1985)
  …iled to allege an essential element of a claim under §504, namely, that a primary objective of the federal funds received by the defendants was to provide employment. Id., at 1272. Respondent then sought review by this Court. We granted certiorari, 465 U. S. 1095 (1984), vacated the judgment [*237] of the Court of Appeals, and remanded the case for further consideration in light of Consolidated Rail Corporation v. Darrone, 465 U. S. 624 (1984), in which we held that §504’s bar on employment discrimination is…
• Gerritsen v. Hurtado, 819 F.2d 1511 (9th Cir. 1987)
  …5). Furthermore, the court's intention of finality is evinced by its apparent conclusion that amendment of the complaint could not save the action. See Scanlon v. Atascadero State Hosp., 677 F. 2d 1271, 1272 (9th Cir.1982), vacated on other grounds, 465 U.S. 1095, 104 S.Ct. 1583, 80 L.Ed.2d 117 [*1515] (1984). The district court dismissed the complaint because of the absence of state action (i.e., conduct under color of state law required by 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3)). In doing so, the district court noted that…
• Coral Constr. Co. v. King Cnty., 941 F.2d 910 (9th Cir. 1991)
  …der each in turn, beginning with section 1983. Section 1983 provides a private cause of action for deprivations of federal rights under color of state law. Meyerson v. State of Arizona, 709 F. 2d 1235, 1238 (9th Cir.1983), vacated on other grounds, 465 U.S. 1095, 104 S.Ct. 1584, 80 L.Ed.2d 118 (1984). Section 1983 “was intended to create a species of tort liability in favor of persons who are deprived of rights, privileges, or immunities secured to them by the Constitution.” Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 2…