Egan v. City of Aurora, Ill

Decision Date06 March 1961
Docket NumberNo. 121,121
Citation81 S.Ct. 684,5 L.Ed.2d 741,365 U.S. 514
PartiesPaul EGAN v. CITY OF AURORA, ILL. et al
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Joseph Keig, Sr., Edwin R. Armstrong and Sol R. Friedman, for petitioner.

William C. Murphy, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, Mayor of the City of Aurora, brought this suit in the District Court against the City and certain of its officials for damages for deprivation of rights secured to him by the Constitution. He alleges unlawful action by the city and by individuals who are or who purport to be its officials (see 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983) and a conspiracy (see 42 U.S.C. § 1985, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1985). The District Court granted the motions to dismiss, 174 F.Supp. 794, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, 275 F.2d 377, both decisions being prior to our opinion in Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 81 S.Ct. 473, 5 L.Ed.2d 492.

The dismissal as to the City of Aurora was correct, for we held in Monroe v. Pape, supra, that a municipality was not a 'person' within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983. Insofar as any right claimed stems from petitioner's status as major under Illinois law it is precluded from assertion here by Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U.S. 1, 64 S.Ct. 397, 88 L.Ed. 497. But as we read the complaint, the rights which petitioner claims he was deprived of are those that derive from the Fourteenth Amendment, particularly the right of free speech and assembly. The opinion of the Court of Appeals is not explicit as respects the grounds for dismissing the complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1985, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1985. See Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U.S. 1, 64 S.Ct. 397; Collins v. Hardyman, 341 U.S. 651, 71 S.Ct. 937, 95 L.Ed. 1253. The Court of Appeals, in affirming the judgment of the District Court on grounds other than the ones relied on by that court, seems to have decided the case on a construction of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983, that apparently is inconsistent with the view we took in Monroe v. Pape, supra.

Accordingly we grant the petition for certiorari, affirm the judgment in favor of the City of Aurora, vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals in favor of the individual respondents and remand the cause as respects them to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of this opinion.

Judgment affirmed in part, vacated in part, and cause remanded.

To continue reading

Request your trial
77 cases
  • Shellburne, Inc. v. New Castle County, Civ. A. No. 3537.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Delaware)
    • 4 November 1968
    ...liable for damages under that section. Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 81 S.Ct. 473, 5 L. Ed.2d 492 (1961); Egan v. City of Aurora, 365 U.S. 514, 81 S.Ct. 684, 5 L. Ed.2d 741 (1961). The reasoning of the Court in Monroe v. Pape supports the conclusion that a county is likewise immune from lia......
  • Beauregard v. Wingard
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of California)
    • 1 June 1964
    ...13 See Egan v. City of Aurora, 7 Cir., 1960, 275 F.2d 377, the statement of the Supreme Court remanding it in Egan v. City of Aurora, 365 U.S. 514, 81 S.Ct. 684, 5 L.Ed.2d 741, and the later decision of the 7th Circuit in Egan v. Aurora, 291 F.2d 706 (1961), written by Circuit Judge Duffy, ......
  • Spell v. McDaniel
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Eastern District of North Carolina
    • 12 July 1984
    ...confession); Monroe v. Pape (Fourth Amendment ÔÇö unreasonable search and seizure); Egan v. City of Aurora, 365 U.S. 514, 81 S.Ct. 684, 5 L.Ed.2d 741 (1961) (per curiam) (First AmendmentÔÇödeprivation of speech and In addition, the due process clause creates certain substantive rights not e......
  • US v. Vital Health Products, Ltd.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court of Eastern District of Wisconsin
    • 10 March 1992
    ...is not a "person" under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Accardi v. United States, 435 F.2d 1239, 1241 (3rd Cir.1970), citing Egan v. City of Aurora, 365 U.S. 514, 81 S.Ct. 684, 5 L.Ed.2d 741 (1961). Moreover, the United States may not be sued without its consent. Ickes, Secretary of the Interior v. Fox, ......
  • 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