Civil Rights Complaints in U.S. District Court, 2000

2002 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Author(s):  
Stephanie Hinnershitz

The wreckage of the Vietnam War and new American polices geared toward resettling refugees brought thousands of Vietnamese to the United States. Although many Vietnamese settled on the West Coast and in the Great Lakes region, thousands more came to the Gulf of Mexico through sponsors or established family connections seeking work in the shrimping or oil industries of Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. But, as the Vietnamese soon discovered, they were not welcomed by the largely white population who feared competition and distrusted racial outsiders. The Vietnamese fought back in the Houston District Court, filing a civil rights suit against the Klan with the assistance of the Southern Poverty Law Center.


2003 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 167-168
Author(s):  
Guillermo A. Montero

In Patel v. Midland Memorial Hospital & Medical Center, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the defendant hospital did not violate the plaintiff's due process rights by suspending his clinical privileges without a pre-suspension hearing, where there were reasonable grounds for assuming that patient safety was at risk. Dr. P.V. Patel, a board-certified cardiologist, brought an action against Midland Memorial Hospital and several of its doctors, alleging that the suspension of his clinical privileges violated his right to a pre-suspension hearing; was the result of racial discrimination; and resulted in anticompetitive behavior in violation of antitrust laws. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas granted Midland's motion for summary judgment. The parties filed cross appeals, Dr. Patel on the ground that there were genuine issues of fact for all of his claims, and Midland on the ground that, with the exception of the civil rights claim, it was immune from all of Dr. Patel's claims under the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986 (HCQIA).


2019 ◽  
Vol 63 (4) ◽  
pp. 205-224 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristen N. Lamb ◽  
Peter Boedeker ◽  
Todd Kettler

Underrepresentation in gifted education for ethnically diverse student groups has been widely recognized. Two recent federal district court decisions defined the lower limits of equitable participation using the 20% equity allowance formula proposed by Donna Ford. The purpose of this article was to evaluate the application of the 20% rule to identify the prevalence of inequity and associated variables in Texas gifted education programs. Using data from the Office of Civil Rights and Texas Education Agency, the authors applied the 20% rule to demographics of K-12 gifted education programs in Texas to identify inequity and used Bayesian regression with district characteristics to investigate contributing factors of inequity. Only 282 of 994 (28.4%) districts met equity standards for Hispanic students. Second, Bayesian regressions with district-level characteristics of students, teachers, and expenditures were used to identify factors associated with inequitable enrollment of Hispanic students. Overall, the model accounted for 12.9% variance ( R2= 0.129, 95% highest density interval [0.095, 0.170]), with increasing variance explained by district subsets (i.e., city, suburb, town, rural). Furthermore, the results of the regression models revealed the percentage of Hispanic and White teachers were inversely associated with inequity across all district subsets. It is postulated that the mechanism of inequity is in the teacher referral process, frequently used as a determinant of gifted education enrollment. The authors suggest means of addressing this reality.


2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ladju Kusmawardi ◽  
Kholis Roisah

<p>The Commercial Court is a special court within the General Courts. This<br />Commercial Court has the authority to accept, examine and adjudicate the case for<br />an application for bankruptcy statements, request for a delay in the obligation to pay<br />debts (PKPU), other claims and intellectual property rights (IPR).This study aims to<br />determine the scope of duties and authority of the Commercial Court, the legal<br />standing of Creditors and Debtors after the dispute has been decided by Hakim<br />Niaga and has permanent legal force and the implementation of the execution at the<br />Commercial Court. The approach method used in this research is sociological<br />juridical with the Semarang City research area, especially the Semarang<br />Commercial Court. The research subjects included those involved in the proceedings<br />at the Semarang Commercial Court. Primary data and secondary data are obtained<br />through field surveys and literature studies.Based on the research and analysis<br />results, it is known that the scope of duties and authority of the Commercial Court is<br />to accept, examine and decide on the case for an application for bankruptcy<br />statements, postponement of the obligation to pay debts (PKPU), other claims and<br />cases included in the field of intellectual property rights (IPR).The legal standing of<br />the parties is that for the Debtor after being declared bankrupt by the Commercial<br />Court Judge, he loses the right to manage the bankrupt assets owned by him, but the<br />Debtor's civil rights as a person (personrechi) is not lost.Regarding the execution of<br />the Commercial Court that is still guided by the provisions of HI R / RBg as the<br />execution of civil cases in the District Court, this is because Law No. 4 of 1998 has<br />not been regulated separately. Especially for the execution of the forged Brand case,<br />the mark of the falsified goods / products is carried out at the Directorate General of<br />Trademark, Copy and Patent of the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights in Jakarta</p>


Author(s):  
Richard A. Rosen ◽  
Joseph Mosnier

This chapter describes Chambers's efforts to enforce Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibited discrimination in restaurants, motels, and other places of public accommodation, against attempts to circumvent the new law's broad reach, confirmed by an earlier U.S. Supreme Court ruling. The Charlotte YMCA argued for a "private club" exemption under Title II, but quickly abandoned that claim and agreed to desegregate when Chambers filed suit. Chambers also sued the Raleigh YMCA, which sought to prevent desegregation of its exercise facilities on a similar claim notwithstanding that the YMCA's officers had desegregated their cafeteria and rental lodging. After a loss at trial before an unsympathetic U.S. District Court judge, Chambers and LDF won an unqualified victory on appeal before the Fourth Circuit. Chambers also prevailed in a suit to open Moore's Barbecue Restaurant in New Bern to black customers despite Moore's claim to have arranged his business affairs so as to be free of any connection to "interstate commerce," a key element of the Supreme Court's basis for upholding Title II. Here, Chambers overcame a hostile federal judge who willingly ignored a fundamental judicial canon by repeatedly communicating privately about the case with Moore's attorney.


Author(s):  
Derrick Bell

Graduation Day At Yale University in late May 2002 was blessed with warm, clear weather. It is the hope for such a beautiful morning that enables outdoor commencements to survive the rain-soaked disappointment of those hopes on far too many better-forgotten occasions. Yale’s Old Campus was filled with faculty, administrators, soon-to-be graduates, and their well-dressed families and friends. Under the canopy-covered stage, there were ten individuals designated to receive honorary degrees because of their significant achievements. I was there at the invitation of one of those honorees, Robert L. Carter, my mentor and friend for more than forty years. Then eighty-five, a senior judge on the federal district court with thirty years of service, Carter had previously enjoyed a long and distinguished career as an NAACP civil rights attorney and, for a few years, a partner in a large law firm. All of these accomplishments would be worthy of the praise and warm applause that other candidates received. When, though, Yale University president Richard Levin announced that Judge Carter was an important member of the legal team that planned the strategies and argued the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education , noting that the decision was only two years short of its fiftieth anniver­sary, the audience leaped to its feet and, with great enthusiasm, applauded and cheered. On that happy day, Judge Carter was the recipient of the audience’s appreciation for his work in helping litigate a case in which the Supreme Court had held racial segregation in the public schools unconstitutional. The mainly white audience that had assembled for the commencement exercises at one of the nation’s premier universities was not unsophisticated. For them, and so many others regardless or status or race, Brown v. Board of Education evoked awe and respect. I fasked, most would have agreed that the decision was the finest hour of American law. In their view, this long-awaited and now much-appreciated decision had erased the contradiction between the freedom and justice for all that America proclaimed, and the subordination by race permitted by our highest law.


1998 ◽  
Vol 78 (4) ◽  
pp. 465-491 ◽  
Author(s):  
HENRY F. FRADELLA

In the last few years, the popular press, judges, state attorneys general, and legal scholars have raised concerns about the frivolus nature of lawsuits filed in federal court by inmates in state and local custodies under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. An ethnographic content analysis of a random sample of 200 cases filed in 1994 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona demonstrates that the label “frivolous” is used in different ways by various stakeholders in the civil justice system. A typology of differing conceptualizations of frivolous cases is explored, and the sociolegal and public policy implications of the findings are discussed.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document