explaining that the class at issue in that case, persons who had filed worker’s compensation claims or personal injury suits against employers, was not—like classes “based on political beliefs or associations”—“envisioned by the framers of [§ 1985(3)]”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that the class at issue in that case, persons who had filed worker’s compensation claims or personal injury suits against employers, was not—like classes “based on political beliefs or associations”—“envisioned by the framers of [§ 1985(3)]”
- stating that § 1985(2) "was intended to protect against direct violations of a party or witness's right to attend or testify in federal court"
- stating that alleged retaliation for attempting to file or actually filing a lawsuit is insufficient to state a claim under section 1985(2)
- holding that the first clause of § 1985(2) is, in part, “aimed at retaliations for past federal court attendance or testimony.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled in part, on other grounds by Kush v. Rutledge, 460 U.S. 719 (1983)
648 F.2d 340, 348 (5th Cir. 1981) (en banc), overruled in part on other grounds by Kush, 460 U.S. at 723
The opinion
REAVLEY, Circuit Judge,
with whom
GODBOLD, Chief Judge, and RANDALL, Circuit Judge, join, specially concurring:
I concur in the judgment for the reasons given in part IV of the majority opinion. I agree with the dissent that no racial or class-based animus is required by Section 1985(2).