Lawton v. Nightingale, C 70-343.

Decision Date27 June 1972
Docket NumberNo. C 70-343.,C 70-343.
Citation345 F. Supp. 683
PartiesCharles LAWTON, Jr., by and through his next friend and father, Charles Lawton, Sr., Plaintiff, v. Homer NIGHTINGALE, Supt. Board of Education, Washington Local School District, et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio

Nathan K. Miller, Toledo, Ohio, for plaintiff.

Patrick J. Johnson, Toledo, Ohio, for defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DON J. YOUNG, District Judge:

This is a civil rights action, brought under the provisions of Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In its present posture, the only issue remaining to be considered is the right of the plaintiff to recover damages. The defendants timely filed a demand for jury trial of this issue. This Court, sua sponte, issued an order to the defendants to show cause why their demand for a jury trial should not be stricken.

The defendants have responded to this order by claiming that under the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution all actions for damages, even those incidental to actions primarily for equitable relief, are triable to a jury. As authority for this position they cite Beacon Theatres v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500, 79 S.Ct. 948, 3 L.Ed.2d 988 (1959), and Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood, 369 U.S. 469, 82 S. Ct. 894, 8 L.Ed.2d 44 (1962), together with several decisions of the Circuit Courts of Appeals, including Bereslavsky v. Kloeb, 162 F.2d 862 (6th Cir.1947).

It might perhaps be useful at this point to refer to the language of the Constitution itself, rather than the gloss put upon it by the courts. The Seventh Amendment is brief, simple, and explicit.

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

It cannot be pretended that the present action is a "Suit at common law." Quite the contrary, the action is brought under a statute, and the enactment of the statute itself was under the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Hence the authorities cited by the defendants, dealing as they do with totally different factual and legal situations are without authority in the present case.

The law is well established that the various special statutory actions which have been created from time to time since the adoption of the Seventh Amendment do not come within the meaning of common law. See e.g., Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.; Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15 et seq.; Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. § 77a et seq.; National Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, 29 U.S.C. § 401 et seq.; McFerren v. County Board of Ed. of Fayette Co., Tenn., 455 F.2d 199 (6th Cir.1972).

For some reason, perhaps because it is so obvious that no one has previously raised and insisted upon the question, there do not appear to be any cases specifically holding that the Seventh Amendment right to a trial by jury does not apply to civil rights cases under ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Rogers v. Loether
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • September 29, 1972
    ...84 Harv.L.Rev. 1109, 1264. Among the cases, see Hayes v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R., 46 F.R.D. 49, 53 (S.D. Ga. 1970); Lawton v. Nightingale, 345 F. Supp. 683 (D.C.Ohio, 1972). 10 See N.L.R.B. v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. at 48, 57 S.Ct. at 11 Baltimore & Carolina Line, Inc. v. R......
  • Chilton v. National Cash Register Company, Civ. No. 4363.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Southern District of Ohio
    • February 1, 1974
    ...impediment making actions at law inadequate to remedy the societal problem and statutory violation.10 See Lawton v. Nightingale, 345 F.Supp. 683 (N.D.Ohio W.D.1972). As such, Ross makes it clear that a jury trial is not available for such actions. 29 U.S.C. § 626 actions for damages only ar......
  • Hildebrand v. Board of Trustees of Michigan State University
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • September 17, 1979
    ...had no direct common-law counterpart. See McCraw v. United Ass'n of Journeymen, 341 F.2d 705, 709 (6th Cir. 1965); Lawton v. Nightingale, 345 F.Supp. 683 (N.D.Ohio 1972); Buss v. Douglas, 59 F.R.D. 334 (D.Neb.1973). Whatever merit there might have been to this expansive notion, it was quick......
  • Van Ermen v. Schmidt
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. Western District of Wisconsin
    • May 2, 1974
    ...public prejudices and are, therefore, ill-suited for deciding § 1983 actions seeking to vindicate unpopular claims. Lawton v. Nightingale, 345 F.Supp. 683 (N.D.Ohio, 1972). Statutory Right to Jury 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and its predecessors contain no specific provision for jury trial. Plaintiff ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT