Despite several opportunities to do so, appellant did nothing to correct misunderstanding regarding statutory authority for federal jurisdiction until after circuit court issued opinion; therefore, appellant’s request to amend decision denied, although opinion not to be taken as statement that district court was correct in transferring damages issue to Court of General Sessions.
How later courts described this case
- Despite several opportunities to do so, appellant did nothing to correct misunderstanding regarding statutory authority for federal jurisdiction until after circuit court issued opinion; therefore, appellant’s request to amend decision denied, although opinion not to be taken as statement that district court was correct in transferring damages issue to Court of General Sessions.
- casting doubt on sufficiency of stop based only on store manager's claim that customer was acting 'suspicious'
- denial of injunction held proper
- state and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction over civil rights actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
J. SKELLY WRIGHT, Circuit Judge,
dissenting in part:
Since jurisdiction in this case is laid under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1970) and 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (1970), and no jurisdictional amount is required to sustain that jurisdiction in the District Court, see Douglas v. City of Jeannette, 319 U.S. 157 , 63 S.Ct. 877 , 87 L.Ed. 1324 (1943), I respectfully dissent from that part of the court’s opinion which requires a transfer of this case to the Superior Court.