# Versie Kimble v. D. J. McDuffy Inc. And Industrial Foundation of the South, and All of Its Subscribers

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · June 18, 1981 · 648 F.2d 340

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9467903

## Case

- **Full name:** Versie KIMBLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D. J. McDUFFY, INC. and Industrial Foundation of the South, and All of Its Subscribers, Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** June 18, 1981
- **Citations:** 648 F.2d 340; 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 12182
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Reavley
- **Judges:** Godbold, Brown, Ainsworth, Clark, Roney, Gee, Tjoflat, Hill, Fay, Vance, Kravitch, Johnson, Garza, Henderson, Reavley, Politz, Hatchett, Anderson, Randall, Tate, Williams
- **Cited by:** 92 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled in part, on other grounds by Kush v. Rutledge, 460 U.S. 719 (1983).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9467903

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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.”

## Opinion text

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).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9467903. Public record. Not legal advice.