Myrtie Hopkins v. Condon Wasson, Robert Hamilton, Joe Ledford, J. A. Ware, Joe Harris and Lesterhaney

329 F.2d 67, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 6262
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 25, 1964
Docket15406
StatusPublished
Cited by26 cases

This text of 329 F.2d 67 (Myrtie Hopkins v. Condon Wasson, Robert Hamilton, Joe Ledford, J. A. Ware, Joe Harris and Lesterhaney) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Myrtie Hopkins v. Condon Wasson, Robert Hamilton, Joe Ledford, J. A. Ware, Joe Harris and Lesterhaney, 329 F.2d 67, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 6262 (6th Cir. 1964).

Opinion

ORDER.

Plaintiff-Appellant, Myrtie Hopkins, brought this suit against defendants appellees, who were respectively the principal of the Bradley County, Tennessee, High School and members of the county board of education. Plaintiff was a teacher in the county high school, but in 1960 her employment was terminated by the board of education. In a diversity action, she charged, in the first count of her complaint, that defendants had, by terminating her employment and by the utterance of certain slanderous statements, deprived her of civil rights. She relies on Title 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1981-1988, as support for such cause of action. She does not claim that termination of her services violated any contractual or statutory right to be retained as a teacher.

In her second count, she charged defendants with common law slander. The District Court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to Count I. The case was tried to a jury under the slander charges in Count II. The jury returned a verdict for defendants.

*68 Plaintiff’s principal claim of error is the District Judge’s holding that Count I did not state a cause of action for deprivation of civil rights. We affirm this holding upon the District Judge’s Memorandum disposing of defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

Further, we find no reversible error in the District Judge’s refusal to order that plaintiff be furnished a transcript of the trial proceedings at government expense. 227 F.Supp. 278. We likewise find no merit in other claims of error by plaintiff-appellant.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Planters Bank & Trust Co. v. Smith
914 S.W.2d 765 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1996)
Mercer v. Nelson
738 S.W.2d 417 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1987)
Dillon v. Fiberboard Corp.
556 F. Supp. 267 (E.D. Tennessee, 1982)
Mayes v. Gordon
536 F. Supp. 2 (E.D. Tennessee, 1981)
Charles E. Studen v. Robert S. Beebe
588 F.2d 560 (Sixth Circuit, 1978)
Church of Scientology of California v. Cazares
455 F. Supp. 420 (M.D. Florida, 1978)
Grynberg v. B. B. L. Associates
436 F. Supp. 564 (D. Colorado, 1977)
Ohio Inns, Inc. v. William B. Nye
542 F.2d 673 (Sixth Circuit, 1976)
Ohio Inns, Inc. v. Nye
542 F.2d 673 (Sixth Circuit, 1976)
Javits v. Stevens
382 F. Supp. 131 (S.D. New York, 1974)
Covington Housing Development Corp. v. City of Covington
381 F. Supp. 427 (E.D. Kentucky, 1974)
Jervey v. Martin
336 F. Supp. 1350 (W.D. Virginia, 1972)
Peoples Cab Co. v. Bloom
330 F. Supp. 1235 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1971)
Thomas Justin Orr v. Raymond E. Trinter
444 F.2d 128 (Sixth Circuit, 1971)
Orr v. Trinter
29 Ohio Misc. 149 (Sixth Circuit, 1971)
Keen v. Philadelphia Daily News
325 F. Supp. 929 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1971)
Gorman v. Lukowsky
431 F.2d 971 (Sixth Circuit, 1970)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
329 F.2d 67, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 6262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/myrtie-hopkins-v-condon-wasson-robert-hamilton-joe-ledford-j-a-ware-ca6-1964.