holding that the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine did not bar a section 1985 conspiracy claim based on “alleged numerous acts undertaken by several defendants”
How later courts described this case
- holding that the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine did not bar a section 1985 conspiracy claim based on “alleged numerous acts undertaken by several defendants”
- holding that the intra-corporate conspiracy doctrine did not bar a conspiracy claim where the plaintiff “alleged numerous acts undertaken by several defendants”
- holding that director of state agency did not personally participate in constitutional violation merely because he was aware of grievance
- holding that the ICD did not bar a conspiracy claim where the plaintiff "alleged numerous acts undertaken by several defendants"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MANION, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
With the exception of the discussion concerning whether the defendants were entitled to a directed verdict on plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (3) claim, I join fully in the court’s opinion. I agree with the other members of the court that plaintiff is not entitled to have her § 1985(3) claim remanded for trial because she received full recovery for the actions underlying that claim when she prevailed on her First Amendment claim. Because of this disposition of plaintiff’s § 1985(3) claim, there is no need for the court to address the many issues related to whether defendants were entitled to a directed verdict on that claim. These issues are better left for a case where they are more concretely before the court.