|
Learning Objectives 5.1 The student will be able to identify the possibilities of criminal charges filed in civil rights cases involving excessive force.
5.2 The student will be able to define and identify tort suits, the three degrees of tort actions, and breech of duty.
5.3 The student will be able to identify governmental liability under the Texas Tort Claims Act.
5.4 The student will be able to identify the four elements of Title 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, the Civil Rights Act of 1871.
5.5 The student will be able to identify major constitutional provisions that are used as the basis for Section 1983 actions involving police use of force.
5.6 The student will be able to identify certain basic principles of the nature and scope of Section 1983 that have emerged from Supreme Court decisions.
5.7 The student will be able to identify types of relief or damages that are available in a tort or Section 1983 suit.
5.8 The student will be able to identify the potential for loss of large sums of money to pay for attorney fees under Title 42 Section 1988 U.S.C.A. even if compensatory or punitive damages are small.
5.9 The student will be able to identify opportunities for legal representation and indemnification as provided by statute, local ordinance, or local policy in an excessive force case.
5.10 The student will be able to identify the role their agency's written directives have in the officer's liability.
5.11 The student will be able to identify officer liability in not following prudent police procedures prior to the decision to use force.
5.12 The student will be able to identify possible personal liability for failure to stop other officers from using excessive force in his presence.
5.13 The student will be able to identify factors that the courts use to determine if unreasonable force was used in a case.
5.14 The student will be able to identify factors relating to police negligence in establishing or maintaining roadblocks in police emergencies.
5.15 The student will be able to identify fourth amendment applications to excessive force cases.
5.16 The student will be able to identify the concepts of vicarious liability.
5.17 The student will be able to identify seven most common ways for vicarious liability to be established in federal civil rights violation cases.
5.18 The student will be able to identify the issue of good faith as it affects officer liability and the liability of local government.
You, as a peace officer, must be aware of the possibility of criminal charges being filed in civil rights cases involving excessive force.
Conspiracy against rights of citizens - Title 18 Section 241 United States Annotated.
Laws covering the deprivation of rights under color of law - Title 18 Section 242 United States Code Annotated:
- U.S. vs. Ehrlichman, 546 F. 2d 910 (1976), cert. denied 97 S. Ct. 1155.
- U.S. vs. Dean, 722 F. 2d 92 (5th Cir. 1983)
- U.S. vs. Golden, 671 F. 2d 369 (10th Cir. 1975)
- U.S. vs. Stokes, 506 F. 2d 771 (5th Cir. 1975)
- U.S. vs. Delerme, Jr., 457 F 32d 156 (3rd Cir. 1972)
- U.S. v. Kerley, 643 F. 2d 299 (5th Cir. 1981)
Federal civil rights complaints are investigated by the FBI.
There are 10 - 12,000 civil rights complaints a year, one third are investigated with about 75 - 100 presented to a grand jury. They look for clearly offensive, deliberate and willful misconduct. They may, if an agency is taking swift decisive action to punish misconduct, defer to that administrative process.
There is no good faith defense for criminal violation.
Violations of the Civil Rights of a Prisoner - Article 39.021 Vernon's Annotated Texas Penal Code.
1. Gordan vs. State, 681 S.W. 2d 629 (Texas App. 14 District 1984)
Definition and Identity of Tort Suits, Tort Actions and Breach of Duty
Tort Suits are suits brought in state court when one person feels that they have suffered some injury because of the fault of another.
Negligence is the failure to exercise the proper degree of care a prudent of reasonable person would exercise in similar circumstances.
Gross negligence is an aggravated form of negligence where the wrongdoer acts with reckless disregard for the probable consequences of their actions.
Intentional action occurs when a person willfully engages in an act where the chance that harm will result is so great that they must be "aware" that harm will occur.
Winning a tort suit requires proof that there was a duty which was breached, and the breach caused the injury or damage.
Governmental Liability Under the Texas Tort Claims Act
- A governmental liability in Texas Courts to the extent that the Texas Tort Claims Act permits.
- Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code (TCPRC)
- Section 101.001
- Section 101.021
- Section 101.023 through Section 101.27
- Section 101.055 through Section 101.57
- Section 101.103
- Section 101.105 and Section 101.106
- Cases relevant to the Texas Claims Act.
- Forbus vs. City of Denton, 595 S.W. 2d 621 (Texas Civ. App. 1980)
- State vs. Terrell, 574 S.W. 2d 616 (Texas Civil App. 1978), 588 S.W. 784 (Sup. Ct. 1979)
- County of Brazoria vs. Radtke, 566 S.W. 2d 326 (Texas Civil App. 1978)
- City of San Antonio vs. Higle, 685 S.W. 2d 682 (Texas App. 4 District 1984)
- City of Amarillo vs. Langley, 651 S.W. 2d 906 (Texas App. 7 District 1983)
- Four Elements of Title 42 U.S.C. Sect. 1983 (Civil Rights Bill of 1871)
The Civil Rights Act of 1871 was originally passed to protect the civil rights of the recently freed slaves in the south. It is often referred to as a "Section 1983" suit because it is found in Title 42 of the United States Code under Section 1983.
Section 1983 is the most important federal civil rights statute involved in actions against the police. Section 1983 provides that every person shall be liable to the party injured who:
- Under color of state law.
- Subjects or causes to be subjected.
- Any citizen or inhabitant.
- To the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.
- Basis for Sect. 1983 Actions Involving Police Use of Force
- The Fourth Amendment
- Wolf vs. Colorado, 69 S. Ct. 1359 (1949).
- Tennessee vs. Garner, 105 S. Ct. 1694 (1985).
- The Fifth Amendment
- Benton vs. Maryland, 89 S. Ct. 2056 (1969).
- The Eighth Amendment
- Robinson vs. California 82 S. Ct. 1417 (1962).
- The Fourteenth Amendment
- Grandstaff vs. City of Borger, 767 F. 2d 161 (1985).
The Nature and Scope of Sect. 1983
- Section 1983 must be carefully read and understood in the context of interpretations by the federal courts, especially the United States Supreme Court. Occasionally, where Congress has disagreed with a particular judicial interpretation, it has acted to amend the statute.
- District of Columbia vs. Carter, 93 S. Ct. 602 (1979)
- Basic principles have emerged from the readings of Supreme Court decisions.Section 1983 itself creates neither substantive rights nor jurisdiction in the federal courts.
- Chapman vs. Houston Welfare Rights Organization, 99 S. Ct. 1905 (1979).
- The plaintiff suing under Section 1983 must specifically plead federal jurisdiction under the appropriate jurisdictional statute. Section 1983 is available to a plaintiff even if the conduct alleged also violates state law.
- 1. Monroe vs. Pape, 81 S. Ct. 473 (1961).
- A plaintiff suing under Section 1983 need not bring separate state and federal actions.
- Migra vs. Warren City School District Board of Education, 104 S. Ct. (1984).
- There is no requirement that a Section 1983 plaintiff first exhaust his remedies under state law.
- Monroe vs. Pape, supra.
- Patsy vs. Florida Board of Regents, supra.
- In order to have valid Section 1983 claim instead of a state tort claim, it is necessary to prove that actions taken were beyond mere negligence.
- Daniels vs. Williams, 106 S. Ct. 662 (1986).
- Davidson vs. Cannon, 106 S. Ct. 668 (1986).
- The defendants actions must be the legal cause of the harm alleged by the plaintiff.
- Martinez vs. California, 100 S. Ct. 553 (1980).
- Types of relief or damages available in a tort or Sect. 1983.Sections 1983 cases frequently involved injunctive relief telling someone (usually the agency) not to do something or to do something.
Three types of monetary damages can be awarded plaintiff if they win the suit.
- Nominal damages can be awarded when the plaintiff cannot prove a substantial loss or injury, usually $1.00.
- Compensatory damages can be awarded to compensate for their actual loss.
- Punitive damages can be awarded over and above compensatory damages if the defendant acted in a wanton, reckless, malificious, or fraudulent manner or acted with "reckless and callous indifference" to the rights of the plaintiff.
- Punitive damages cannot be awarded against a local government.
- Punitive damages usually must be paid by the individual and not the governmental entity or insurance company.
Cases dealing with types of damage:
- Smith vs. Wade, 105 S. Ct. 1623, 33 Cr. L. 3021 (1983).
- Carlson vs. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980).
- Newport vs. Fact Concents, Inc., 453 U.S. 247 (1981).
- Palmer vs. Hall, 517 F. 2d 705 (5th Cir. 1975).
Possible large money loss under Title 42, Sect. 1988 U.S.C.A.
Title 42 Section 1988 U.S.C.A. passed in 1976 allows the court to award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party. In many cases awards for attorney fees have greatly exceeded awards for damages.
Making an early settlement offer can stop the "meter" of attorneys charges in the actual damage awarded later is less than the offer.
Cases dealing with attorney fees.
- McNamara vs. Moody, 606 F. 2d 621 (5th Cir. 1979).
- Dean vs. Gladney, 621 F. 2d 1331 (5th Cir. 1980), cert. d 101 S. Ct. 1521.
- Swope vs. Bratton, 541 F. Supp. 99 (1982).
- Smiddy vs. Varney, 574 F. Supp. 710 (1983).
- Marek vs. Chesny, Ill., 105 S. Ct. 3012 (1985).
- Kentucky vs. Graham, 105 S. Ct. 3099 (1985).
- Hensley vs. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424.
- City of Riverside vs. Rivera, 39 Cr. L. 3241 (6-27-86).
Legal representation and indemnification as provided by statute, local ordinance or local policy in excessive force cases.
Indemnification means to make good anothers loss caused by some particular act or omission. (Cochrans Law Leico, 5th Edition).
County Employees
- Title 15 Article 332c Vernons Annotated Texas Civil Statutes.
- Chapter 102, Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
City or special purpose district peace officers.
- Title 23 Article 1269s Vernons Annotated Texas Civil Statutes.
- Chapter 102, Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
State Employees
- Chapter 104, Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
The role your agencys written directives have in your liability.
Written directives of an agency may be used against the officer and/or the agency. Written directives of an agency may be used to support the officer and/or the agency.
An officer using more force than the agencys written directives allow is increasing his vulnerability to legal liability. The good faith defense for an officer is greatly enhanced when following the written directives of the department.
Cases dealing with the role of written directives:
- Dillibeck vs. City of Los Angeles, 72 Cal. Reporter 321, 446 P. 2d 129 (Cal. 1968).
- Delong vs. City and County of Denver, 530 P. 2d 1308 (Colo. App. 1947). Affirmed 545 P. 2d 154 (Jan. 26, 1976).
- City of San Antonio vs. Higle, 685 S.W. 2d 682 (Texas App. 4 District 1984), ref. n.r.e.
Officer liability when not following prudent police procedures prior to the decision to use force.
Failure to follow proper procedures can make a situation more dangerous. Keep in mind that most procedures have had their basis in safety. That is, a rule is usually developed to protect the officer and the citizens.
Failing to follow prudent procedures in stopping and confronting suspects may increase the risk that force be used.
An officer can be found liable in his justified use of deadly force if his negligent conduct created a danger for himself or others.
Relevant cases:
- Young vs. City of Killeen, Texas, 775 F. 2d 349 (5th Cir. 1985).
- Cheatham vs. City of New Orleans, La., 378 So. 2d 369.
Possible personal liability for failure to stop other officers from using excessive force in your presence.
A police supervisor has an affirmative duty to intervene to stop officers who are engaging in excessive force in his presence.
A non-supervisory officer has an affirmative duty to intervene to stop officers and/or supervisors who are engaging in excessive force in his presence.
Relevant cases dealing with liability for failure to intervene:
- Webb vs. Hiykel, 713 F. 2d 405 (8th Cir. 1983).
- Byrd vs. Brishke, 466 F. 2d 6 (7th Cir. 1972).
- Whirl vs. Kern, 407 F. 2d 781 (5th Cir. 1968).
- Putnam vs. Gerloff, 639 F. 2d 415, 423 (8th Cir. 1981).
- Ware vs. Reed, 709 F. 2d 345 (5th Cir. 1983).
Determining factors used by courts in unreasonable force cases.
Reasonable force may be used to effect an arrest when an officer has probable cause for that arrest. The 4th Amendment limits the level of force that may be used to reasonable force. Reasonableness is based on individual facts and circumstances of the situation.
The need for force will be evaluated. The feasibility or availability of alternatives are considerations. Motivation for the force will be evaluated. Whether the force was used to maintain or gain control or to harm will be considered.
The extent of injury inflicted will be evaluated. Minor injuries may be relegated to state court as a tort suit rather than as a Section 1983 cause.
Whether the officers actions created a situation of dangerousness where a fatal error was likely.
Other considerations which might be used:
- The nature of the offense is which control was lost.
- Actions of third parties who were present.
- An emergency situation which existed.
- Behavior of the person against whom force was used.
- The physical size, strength and weaponry of the arrestee.
- Known character of the arrestee.
In general, an action is unreasonable if a reasonable man in similar circumstances would recognize the act as involving a risk of harm and a risk of such magnitude as to outweigh the utility of the act or the manner in which it was done. If an officers conduct in discharging his weapon creates a danger recognizable as such by a reasonable and similarly situated officer, he will be held accountable to others as the proximate result of his conduct.
Relevant cases:
- Roberts vs. Marino, 656 F. 2d 1112 (5th Cir. 1981).
- Shillingford vs. Holmes, 634 F. 2d 263 (5th Cir. 1981).
- Whitley vs. Albers, 38 Cr. L. 3161.
- Kyle vs. New Orleans, 353 So. 2d 969 (la. 1977).
- Young vs. City of Killeen, TX., 775 F. 2d 1349 (5th Cir. 1985).
Civil Practice and Remedies Code, Section 101.55 Vernons Texas Code Annotated.
Police Roadblocks In An Emergency Factors relating to police negligence in establishing or maintaining roadblocks in police emergencies.
Some issues which will occur in roadblock litigation:
- Place and time of roadblock.
- Whether the roadblock was placed in a position which afforded clear visibility to oncoming cars.
- Whether advanced signals were placed to warn traffic.
- Whether nearby parked cars were removed.
Relevant cases of roadblock litigation:
- City of Amarillo vs. Langley, 651 S.W. 2d 906 (Texas App. 1983).
- Jamieson by and through Jamieson vs. Shaw, 772 F. 2d 1205 (5th Cir. 1985).
- Myers vs. Town of Harrison, 578 S.W. 2d 597 (Mo. 1979).
- Cannada vs. Moore, 578 S.W. 2d 597 (Mo. 1979).
FOR YOUR INFORMATION ONLY
- DWI Roadblocks invalid, at least for now, in Texas.
From The Law Officers Bulletin, The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., July 14, 1994. Volume 18, No. 26.
The Texas Legislature must take action before law enforcement departments in that state may use checkpoints as a way of addressing the problem of drunk driving. This is the result of a decision June 15 by majority of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. The Fourth Amendment requires that a statewide governing body authorize and implement an administrative scheme establishing guidelines for such checkpoints, the majority declared. This point would currently be constitutionally unreasonable. (State v. Holt, Texas Ct. Crim. App., 6/15/94).
The majority relied on language in the leading U.S. Supreme Court decision on DWI roadblocks, Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444, 14 LOB 139 (1990), and on the events that led up to the Sitz case. The roadblock in Sitz came about after a legislative task force recommended the use of roadblocks and the governor, acting on that recommendation, caused the appointment of a committee to draft guidelines. A state court declared the roadblock invalid under the balancing test of Brown vs. Texas, 460 U.S. (1983), but the U.S. Supreme Court said that Brown was not meant to transfer from politically accountable officials to the courts the decision as to which among reasonable alternative law enforcement techniques should be employed to deal with a serious public danger.
The Texas majority focused on the words politically accountable officials. It also noted that the Supreme Court did not question the procedures Michigan used to create the roadblock guidelines. On the basis of these factors, the Texas majority concluded that a court may not consider the constitutionality of a law enforcement technique until that technique has been authorized by a politically accountable governing body. "We believe that the Supreme Court implicitly makes it a requirement that for any DWI checkpoint program to pass constitutional muster, it must at a basic minimum be authorized by a statewide policy emanating from a politically accountable governing body," the majority said.
Three members of the court dissented. The quotation from Sitz grew, they said, out of the particular situation the court faced there and was not meant to create the requirement recognized by the majority. They also pointed out that the only other state high court decision to address this question, State v. Barker, 850 P. 2d. 885 (Kan. Sup. Ct. 1993), came out the other way.
Rolling Roadblocks
Police attempt to use a gradually slowing police car or some other means to "box in" a speeding car in order to compel it to slow down and eventually stop.
Review: City of Amarillo vs. Langley, supra.
Fourth Amendment Application to Excessive Force Cases
Because the Garner case on deadly force based the constitutional violation upon the Fourth Amendments right to be free from unreasonable seizure rather than a due process violation under the Fifty and Fourteenth Amendments, more litigation on excessive force can be expected.
Under this reasoning the use of any significant degree of excessive force in effecting an otherwise constitutional arrest may constitute an unreasonable seizure.
Whether a particular seizure is constitutionally unreasonable depends upon factual circumstances.
To determine the question requires that the court "balance the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individuals Fourth Amendment interests against the governmental interests alleged to justify the intrusion." Garner.
Fourth Amendment cases:
- Kidd vs. ONeil, 774 F. 2d 1252 (4th Cir. 1985).
- Robbins vs. Harum, 773 F. 2d 1004 (9th Cir. 1985).
- Tennesse vs. Garner, 105 S. Ct. 1694 (1985).
Vicarious Liability
Definition:
Respondeat Superior is an old English common law notion that the master is responsible for the acts of the servant. It does not apply to government employees.
Vicarious liability means that under this theory in order to hold an administrator, supervisor or local government liable, a plaintiff would have to show that they were somehow negligent in the manner in which they supervised their subordinates.
To find the administrator, supervisor, or governmental entity liable, there must be an affirmative link between the civil rights violation and the agency or supervisor. For Section 1983 cases, that link to the agency is a policy or custom.
A policy is:
- An officially adopted policy; or
- A widespread practice that is so common that it fairly represents agency or departmental policy.
Plaintiffs want to link local government to the civil rights action because they have the "deep pockets" or money.
There are six steps a plaintiff must establish to link vicarious liability to the local governmental entity.
- Prove improper, unconstitutional action by the officer.
- Prove action was pursuant to policy or custom.
- Prove policy or custom was wrong.
- Prove policy or custom was known or should have been known by the agency administrator.
- Prove that the administrator represented the local governmental entity because of delegated policy making authority.
- Prove that local government knew or acquiesced to the policy or policy makings.
Vicarious Liability Cases
- Monnell vs. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978).
- McNamara vs. Moody, 606 F. 2d 621 (th Cir. 1979).
- Grandstaff vs. City of Borger, Texas, 767 F. 2d 161 (5th Cir. 1985), cert. denied.
- Bennett vs. City of Slidell, 728 F. 2d 762, rehearing denied, 735 F. 2d 861. (5th Cir. 1984), Cert. denied, 105 S. Ct. 3476 (1985).
- Webster vs. City of Houston, 735 F. 2d 838 (5th Cir.) (en banc), recd on other grounds, 739 F. 2d (5th Cir. 1984) (en banc).
Seven most common ways for vicarious liability to be established in federal civil rights violation cases:
- Negligent HiringEmploying someone without adequately investigating their background or qualifications for the job.
Failure to screen properly and to weed out the obviously unfit provides the link needed if an employee violates someones civil rights.
Only gross negligence is actionable.
Negligent hiring cases:
- Moon v. Winfield, 383 F. Supp 31 (N.D. Ill. 1974).
- Peters vs. Bellinger, 159 N.E. 2d 528 (Ill., App. 1959).
- McKenna vs. The City of Memphis, 544 F. Supp., 415 (W.D. Tenn. 1982).
- Negligent AssignmentAssigning someone to a job without making sure he is prepared and fit to do the job. If an officer is obviously unfit for an assignment, the assignment should be changed.
Negligent assignment case:
- Moon vs. Winfield, supra.
- Negligent supervision.Not adequately overseeing the activities of an employee if the supervisor "knew or should have known" such supervision was required.
- Marusa vs. District of Columbia, 484 F. 2d 828 (D.C. Cir. 1973).
- Thomas vs. Johnson, 295 F. Supp. 1025 (D.D.C. 1968).
- London vs. Ryan, 349 So. 2d 1334 (La. App. 1977).
- Negligent Retention.Failure to suspend or terminate an employee who has demonstrated incompetence, unreliability or other suitability for the job.
Negligent retention cases:
- McCrink vs. City of New York, 71 N.E. 2d 419 (Ct. App. N.Y. 1974).
- Brandon vs. Allen, 516 F. Supp. 1355, 1357 (W.D. Tennessee 1981).
- Brandon vs. Holt, 105 S. Ct. 873, 83 L. Ed. 2d 878 (1985).
- Negligent Entrustment.The failure of a supervisor to properly supervise or control an employees custody use of equipment or facilities entrusted to him on the job.
For example: automobile, firearms, nightstick, tear gas, etc.
Negligent entrustment case:
- McAndrews vs. Mulavcheck, 162 A. 2d 820 (N.J. 1960).
- Failure to DirectNot telling the employee of the specific requirements and proper limits of the job to be performed.
Failure to direct cases:
- Ford vs. Brier, 383 F. Supp. 505 (E.D. Wis, 1974).
- Dwell vs. Lawson, 489 F. 2d 877 (10th Cir. 1974).
- Bonsignore vs. City of New York, 51 F. Supp. 394 (S.D.N. 1981), affirmed 2nd Circuit 1982.
- Odal Typographers, Inc. vs. City of New York, 560 F. Supp. 558 (1983).
- Failure to TrainAgencies have an affirmative duty to train their employees. The plaintiff must establish that there was a policy of failure or improper training.
Failure to train cases:
- Meistinsky vs. City of New York, 140 N.YS. 2d 212 (1955).
- Owens vs. Haas, 601 F. 2d 1242 (2nd Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 100 S. Ct. 483.
- McClelland vs. Facteau, 610 F. 2d 693 (10th Cir. 1979).
- Mozingo vs. Barnhart, 285 SS.E. 2d 497 (W. Va. 1981).
- Peer vs. City of Neward, N.J., 176 A. 2d 249 (N.J. Ct. App. 1961).
- Jackson vs. City of Baton Rouge, La., 286 So. 2d 743 (La. App. 1973).
- Thomas vs. Johnson, 295 F. Supp. 1025 (D.D.C. 1968).
- Myers vs. Town of Harrison, 310 F. Supp. 526, affirmed 438 F. 2d 293, cert. denied 404 U.S. 828 (1971).
- Sager vs. Woodland Park, 543 F. Supp. 282 (D. Col. 1982).
- Languirand vs. Hayden, 717 F. 2d 220 (5th Cir. 1983).
- Wellington vs. Daniels, 717 F. 2d 932 (4th Cir. 1983).
- Vippolis vs. Village of Haverstraw, 37 Cr. L. 2387 (2d Cir. 1985).
- City of Okla City vs. Tuttle, 53 U.S.L.W. 5639, 37 Cr. L., 3077 (1985).
The issue of good faith as it affects officer liability and the liability of local government.
- The good faith defense means that officers or personnel will not be held personally liable for damages when:
- the law is not clearly established;
- the law is not known or could not reasonable be known;
- the staff member is unaware that his or her actions or in actions might result in a constitutional violation.
- If the law is clearly established, the good faith immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.
- A police officer should be excused from liability where he acted under a statute that he reasonably believed to be valid but that was later held unconstitutional.
- Local governments cannot use a good faith defense.
- The potential for conflict of interests arises in the legal defense of a suit in which an officer argues that he was only following agency policy and procedures in the use of force and is entitled to a good faith defense. This argument, especially if the officer is called as a witness, could increase the local agencys exposure to monetary liability. Some legal experts have maintained that officers and local attorneys for this reason should seek legal advice as to the correct course of action in this matter.
Relevant good faith cases:
- Harlow vs. Fitzgerald, 102 S. Ct. 2727 (1982).
- Pierson v. Ray, 87 S. Ct. 1213 (1967).
- Richardson vs. City of Conroe, Texas, 582 F. 2d 19 (5th Cir. 1978).
- Owen vs. City of Independence, 100 S. Ct. 398 (1980).
- Palmer vs. Hall, 517 F. 2d 705 (1975).
- City of Amarillo vs. Langley, 651 S.W. 2d 906 (Tex. App. 7th Dist. 1983).
- Coon v. Ledbetter, 780 F. 2d 1158 (5th Cir. 1986).
|
