Frank Slavin v. Tim Curry Etc.
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
The Fifth Circuit sitting en banc included Slavin among the decisions it overruled insofar as they gave private conspirators immunity derived from a judge. Helton v. Clements later explained that intervening Supreme Court accrual decisions also displaced Slavin's use of the last overt act of an alleged civil conspiracy to start the limitations period. The Ninth Circuit declined to rely on Slavin for a separate due process claim when post-deprivation remedies were available. These three confirmed treatments are listed below; later courts continued to cite Slavin's other holdings.
27 later cases cite Frank Slavin v. Tim Curry Etc.; 27 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on Frank Slavin v. Tim Curry Etc.?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Overruled in part
-
The Fifth Circuit sitting en banc overruled the cited line of cases, including Slavin, insofar as they extended a judge's immunity to private conspirators.
Sparks v. Duval County Ranch Co., Inc. · Fifth Circuit en banc · filed
Under the authority of a line of cases,2 commencing in 1970 with Guedry v. Ford, 431 F.2d 660 (5th Cir. 1970), the private defendants obtained dismissal of the complaint’s claims against them as well. It is these cases, insofar as they extend a derivative immunity to private persons who conspire with judges, that we overrule today. ... Slavin v. Curry, 574 F.2d 1256 (5th Cir.), modified on other grounds, 583 F.2d 779 (1978);
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Abrogated
-
The Supreme Court fixed the accrual of a civil rights claim at the alleged unlawful act rather than its later consequences, displacing Slavin's last-overt-act approach to a civil conspiracy.
Chardon v. Fernandez · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
In Ricks, we held that the proper focus is on the time of the discriminatory act, not the point at which the consequences of the act become painful. 449 U. S., at 258.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Declined to follow
-
The Ninth Circuit declined to treat Slavin as persuasive authority that pretrial use of false evidence stated a due process claim where state post-deprivation remedies were available.
Bretz v. Kelman · Ninth Circuit · filed
We recognize the existence of cases from other circuits which have held that allegations describing the use of false evidence and perjured testimony by government officials are sufficient to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. E.g., Slavin v. Curry, 574 F.2d 1256, 1261 (5th Cir.1978), overruled in part on other grounds; Jennings v. Shuman, 567 F.2d 1213, 1221 (3d Cir.1977); McShane v. Moldovan, 172 F.2d 1016, 1019 (6th Cir.1949); Muller v. Wachtel, 345 F.Supp. 160, 161-62 (S.D.N.Y.1972). However, these cases were decided prior to Par-ratt and did not specifically address the question of post-deprivation remedies. Therefore, we do not regard them as persuasive authority for the proposition that Bretz has alleged a denial of his liberty interests without due process.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Frank Slavin v. Tim Curry Etc. and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace