Jonez P. Suthoff v. Yazoo County Industrial Development Corporation

Fifth Circuit

Jonez P. Suthoff v. Yazoo County Industrial Development Corporation

642 F.2d 822, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 14283

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 15, 1981

Docket79-2992

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 642 F.2d 822 (Jonez P. Suthoff v. Yazoo County Industrial Development Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jonez P. Suthoff v. Yazoo County Industrial Development Corporation, 642 F.2d 822, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 14283 (5th Cir. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

On petition for rehearing, the defendants-appellees suggest that the panel erred in assuming that Yazoo County did not have the power to expropriate, since Yazoo County has the power of expropriation for port commission purposes. See Miss.Code § 59-9-19.

Accepting the validity of the petitioner’s assertion solely for the purpose of determining the jurisdictional issue presented on appeal, we conclude that the gravamen of our original holding need not be altered:

The allegations of the complaint — (a) that public and private persons conspired to misuse a municipality’s expropriation powers, (b) through the municipality’s institution of eminent domain proceedings with no intent to condemn, and (c) but solely in order to coerce the private landowners to sell their property at a price far below value to co-conspirator entities not a party to the condemnation proceedings — are sufficient to state a claim of § 1983 federal jurisdiction for deprivation under color of state law of individual federal constitutional rights.

The petitioners again urge the panel to follow the opinions of two other circuits, Beistline v. City of San Diego, 256 F.2d 421 (9th Cir. 1958), cert. denied 358 U.S. 865, 79 S.Ct. 96, 3 L.Ed.2d 98 (1958), and Warring- *823 ton Sewer Company v. Tracey, 463 F.2d 771 (3d Cir. 1972). However, as we noted in the original panel opinion, both of those opinions are distinguishable from the situation presented on the instant appeal: in neither Beistline nor Warrington did the property owner allege that the defendant expropriating body misused its coercive powers by instituting condemnation proceedings in order to force the price down for the benefit of non-parties, without the condemnor having any intention actually to expropriate the land for public use.

The petition for rehearing is DENIED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

On petition for rehearing, the defendants-appellees suggest that the panel erred in assuming that Yazoo County did not have the power to expropriate, since Yazoo County has the power of expropriation for port commission purposes. See Miss.Code § 59-9-19.

Accepting the validity of the petitioner’s assertion solely for the purpose of determining the jurisdictional issue presented on appeal, we conclude that the gravamen of our original holding need not be altered:

The allegations of the complaint — (a) that public and private persons conspired to misuse a municipality’s expropriation powers, (b) through the municipality’s institution of eminent domain proceedings with no intent to condemn, and (c) but solely in order to coerce the private landowners to sell their property at a price far below value to co-conspirator entities not a party to the condemnation proceedings — are sufficient to state a claim of § 1983 federal jurisdiction for deprivation under color of state law of individual federal constitutional rights.

The petitioners again urge the panel to follow the opinions of two other circuits, Beistline v. City of San Diego, 256 F.2d 421 (9th Cir. 1958), cert. denied 358 U.S. 865, 79 S.Ct. 96, 3 L.Ed.2d 98 (1958), and Warring- *823 ton Sewer Company v. Tracey, 463 F.2d 771 (3d Cir. 1972). However, as we noted in the original panel opinion, both of those opinions are distinguishable from the situation presented on the instant appeal: in neither Beistline nor Warrington did the property owner allege that the defendant expropriating body misused its coercive powers by instituting condemnation proceedings in order to force the price down for the benefit of non-parties, without the condemnor having any intention actually to expropriate the land for public use.

The petition for rehearing is DENIED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

642 F.2d 822, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 14283, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jonez-p-suthoff-v-yazoo-county-industrial-development-corporation-ca5-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack