# Volk v. Coler

> Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 2, 1988 · 845 F.2d 1422

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8959903

## Case

- **Full name:** Vivian VOLK v. Gregory COLER, Jessie Hairston, Marty Lohman, Jesse Viers, James Tapen, Thomas Ward, and the State of Illinois Department of Children and Family Services
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
- **Decided:** May 2, 1988
- **Citations:** 845 F.2d 1422; 1988 WL 42880
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Manion
- **Judges:** Cudahy, Manion, Will
- **Cited by:** 133 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8959903

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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"
- holding that plaintiff was not bound by trial court’s erroneous findings on her equitable claims

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8959903. Public record. Not legal advice.