Paul v. Davis case brief summary
424 U.S. 693 (1976)
CASE FACTS
Petitioner police chief sought review, on writ of certiorari, of the decision that respondent accused stated a valid claim under 42 U.S.C.S. §1983 and the Due Process Clause of U.S. Const. amend. XIV. The case arose after petitioner circulated a flier on which respondent's mug shot was displayed. The photograph was taken upon respondent's prior arrest, and the flier was intended to help local retailers identify shoplifters.
DISCUSSION
The Court reversed the judgment finding in favor of respondent accused that a valid Due Process Clause claim was stated against petitioner police chief. The alleged defamation, without injury to tangible interests or state provided rights, was not sufficient to invoke the protection of the Due Process Clause.
Recommended Supplements for Administrative Law
Examples & Explanations: Administrative Law, Fourth Edition
Administrative Law and Process: In a Nutshell (Nutshell Series)
424 U.S. 693 (1976)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Petitioner police chief sought review
on writ of certiorari of the decision of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit that respondent accused set forth a 42 U.S.C.S. §1983 claim alleging violation of the Due Process Clause,
U.S. Const. amend. XIV. The cause of action alleged defamation.CASE FACTS
Petitioner police chief sought review, on writ of certiorari, of the decision that respondent accused stated a valid claim under 42 U.S.C.S. §1983 and the Due Process Clause of U.S. Const. amend. XIV. The case arose after petitioner circulated a flier on which respondent's mug shot was displayed. The photograph was taken upon respondent's prior arrest, and the flier was intended to help local retailers identify shoplifters.
DISCUSSION
- The Court held that petitioner's alleged defamation, a typical state tort claim, was not actionable under the Due Process Clause and §1983.
- The procedural guarantees of the Due Process Clause could not be the source for a body of general federal tort law.
- The Court also found that respondent's injury to reputation was not specially protected by §1983 and the Due Process Clause.
- Damage to reputation, alone, apart from some more tangible interests, was not sufficient to invoke the protection of the Due Process Clause.
- Further, petitioner did not deprive respondent of any state-provided right, and respondent's case was not within the constitutional zone of privacy.
- The Court reversed the judgment.
The Court reversed the judgment finding in favor of respondent accused that a valid Due Process Clause claim was stated against petitioner police chief. The alleged defamation, without injury to tangible interests or state provided rights, was not sufficient to invoke the protection of the Due Process Clause.
Recommended Supplements for Administrative Law
Examples & Explanations: Administrative Law, Fourth Edition
Administrative Law and Process: In a Nutshell (Nutshell Series)
No comments:
Post a Comment