About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

28 S.D. L. Rev. 306 (1982-1983)
Concerning the Vindication of Civil Rights and Compensation Therefor

handle is hein.journals/sdlr28 and id is 316 raw text is: CONCERNING THE VINDICATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND COMPENSATION THEREFOR GEORGE A. BANGS* INTRODUCTION ..................................................... 306 THE AMERICAN RULE ON ATTORNEY FEES .......................... 307 42 U.S.C. Section 1983: THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT .................... 308 Historical Perspective ............................................ 308 Expansion of the Scope of Section 1983 ......................... 309 THE CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY FEES ACT OF 1976: 42 U.S.C. SECTION 1988 ...... ......................................311 42 U.S.C. SECTION 1988 IN STATE COURT ACTIONS ................. 312 BOLAND REVISITED .................................................. 313 C ONCLUSION ........................................................ 315 INTRODUCTION It is a perilous thing for an advocate to write law review articles. This I have learned to my sorrow. My first venture into this field was in 1969 when I undertook to pontificate for this publication on the subject of Rule 10(b)(5)' promulgated under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, which rule at that time was developing into a prolific source of litigation. The ink was scarcely dry on my editorial effort when I was unceremoniously thrown out of court in a case involving Rule 10(b)(5). This wasn't so bad; I had been thrown out of court before, but the federal judge who accom- plished my eviction chose to cite my own law review article as authority for dismissing my complaint.2 This obvious miscarriage of justice was affirmed by the Eighth Circuit, but mercifully without reference to my editorial efforts.3 Undaunted by this unfortunate experience, I undertook to contribute to a symposium on revised Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.4 In that learned treatise I established beyond any reasonable argument that the claims of separate members of a class could and should be aggregated under the revised rule in order to reach the jurisdictional level required for suit in federal court. Once again, the fates were unkind. While the article in question was in the hands of the printer and too late to recall, the United States Supreme Court decided to the contrary.' A kindly editor inserted a * Partner, Bangs, McCullen, Butler, Foye & Simmons, Rapid City, S.D. Member, South Dakota Bar Association (admitted July 1, 1937). 1. Bangs, Rule 10b-5 and the South Dakota Lawyer, 14 S.D.L.REv. 56 (1969). 2. Erling v. Powell, 298 F. Supp. 1151, 1156 (D.S.D. 1969). 3. Erling v. Powell, 429 F.2d 795 (8th Cir. 1970). 4. Bangs, Revised Rule 23: Aggregation of Claims for Achievement of Jurisdictional Amount, 10 B. C. INDUS. AND COM. L. REV. 601 (1969). 5. See Snyder v. Harris, 394 U.S. 332, 336 (1969).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most