lugar
edmondson
oil
argued
december
decided
june
case
concerns
relationship
requirement
state
action
establish
violation
fourteenth
amendment
requirement
action
color
state
law
establish
right
recover
provides
remedy
deprivation
constitutional
rights
deprivation
takes
place
color
statute
ordinance
regulation
custom
usage
state
respondents
filed
suit
virginia
state
debt
owed
petitioner
sought
prejudgment
attachment
certain
petitioner
property
pursuant
virginia
law
respondents
alleged
ex
parte
petition
belief
petitioner
disposing
might
dispose
property
order
defeat
creditors
acting
upon
petition
clerk
state
issued
writ
attachment
executed
county
sheriff
hearing
propriety
attachment
later
conducted
days
levy
trial
judge
dismissed
attachment
respondents
failure
establish
alleged
statutory
grounds
attachment
petitioner
brought
action
federal
district
alleging
attaching
property
respondents
acted
jointly
state
deprive
property
without
due
process
law
district
held
alleged
actions
respondents
constitute
state
action
required
fourteenth
amendment
complaint
therefore
state
valid
claim
appeals
affirmed
basis
complaint
failed
allege
conduct
color
state
law
purposes
neither
usurpation
corruption
official
power
private
litigant
surrender
judicial
power
private
litigant
way
independence
enforcing
officer
compromised
significant
degree
held
constitutional
requirements
due
process
apply
garnishment
prejudgment
attachment
procedures
whenever
state
officers
act
jointly
private
creditor
securing
property
dispute
sniadach
family
finance
challenged
conduct
creditor
constitutes
state
action
delimited
prior
decisions
conduct
also
action
color
state
law
support
suit
pp
conduct
allegedly
causing
deprivation
constitutional
right
protected
infringement
state
must
fairly
attributable
state
determining
question
fair
attribution
deprivation
must
caused
exercise
right
privilege
created
state
rule
conduct
imposed
person
responsible
party
charged
deprivation
must
person
may
fairly
said
state
actor
either
state
official
acted
together
obtained
significant
aid
state
officials
conduct
otherwise
chargeable
state
pp
insofar
petitioner
alleged
misuse
abuse
respondents
virginia
law
state
cause
action
challenged
private
action
challenged
conduct
ascribed
governmental
decision
respondents
authority
state
officials
put
weight
state
behind
private
decision
however
insofar
petitioner
complaint
challenged
state
statute
procedurally
defective
due
process
clause
present
valid
cause
action
statutory
scheme
obviously
product
state
action
private
party
joint
participation
state
officials
seizure
disputed
property
sufficient
characterize
party
state
actor
purposes
fourteenth
amendment
respondents
therefore
acting
color
state
law
participating
deprivation
petitioner
property
pp
white
delivered
opinion
brennan
marshall
blackmun
stevens
joined
burger
filed
dissenting
opinion
post
powell
filed
dissenting
opinion
rehnquist
joined
post
robert
morrison
argued
cause
filed
brief
petitioner
james
haskins
argued
cause
respondents
brief
victor
millner
justice
white
delivered
opinion
fourteenth
amendment
constitution
provides
part
state
shall
make
enforce
law
shall
abridge
privileges
immunities
citizens
shall
state
deprive
person
life
liberty
property
without
due
process
law
deny
person
within
jurisdiction
equal
protection
laws
title
provides
remedy
deprivations
rights
secured
constitution
laws
deprivation
takes
place
color
statute
ordinance
regulation
custom
usage
state
territory
case
concerns
relationship
requirement
action
color
state
law
fourteenth
amendment
requirement
state
action
petitioner
truckstop
virginia
indebted
supplier
edmondson
oil
edmondson
sued
debt
virginia
state
ancillary
action
pursuant
state
law
edmondson
sought
prejudgment
attachment
certain
petitioner
property
code
prejudgment
attachment
procedure
required
edmondson
allege
ex
parte
petition
belief
petitioner
disposing
might
dispose
property
order
defeat
creditors
acting
upon
petition
clerk
state
issued
writ
attachment
executed
county
sheriff
effectively
sequestered
petitioner
property
although
left
possession
pursuant
statute
hearing
propriety
attachment
levy
later
conducted
days
levy
state
trial
judge
ordered
attachment
dismissed
edmondson
failed
establish
statutory
grounds
attachment
alleged
petition
petitioner
subsequently
brought
action
edmondson
president
complaint
alleged
attaching
property
respondents
acted
jointly
state
deprive
property
without
due
process
law
lower
courts
construed
complaint
alleging
due
process
violation
misuse
virginia
procedure
statutory
procedure
sought
compensatory
punitive
damages
specified
financial
loss
allegedly
caused
improvident
attachment
relying
flagg
brothers
brooks
district
held
alleged
actions
respondents
constitute
state
action
required
fourteenth
amendment
complaint
therefore
state
claim
upon
relief
granted
petitioner
appealed
appeals
fourth
circuit
sitting
en
banc
affirmed
three
dissenters
appeals
rejected
district
reliance
flagg
brothers
finding
requisite
state
action
missing
case
participation
state
officers
executing
levy
sufficiently
distinguished
case
flagg
brothers
appeals
stated
issue
follows
hether
mere
institution
private
litigant
presumptively
valid
state
judicial
proceedings
without
prior
subsequent
collusion
concerted
action
litigant
state
officials
proceed
adjudicative
administrative
executive
enforcement
proceedings
constitutes
action
color
state
law
within
contemplation
omitted
construction
requirement
appears
inconsistent
prior
decisions
granted
certiorari
ii
although
appeals
correctly
perceived
importance
flagg
brothers
proper
resolution
case
misread
case
also
failed
give
sufficient
weight
line
cases
beginning
sniadach
family
finance
considered
constitutional
due
process
requirements
context
garnishment
actions
prejudgment
attachments
see
north
georgia
finishing
mitchell
grant
fuentes
shevin
cases
involved
finding
state
action
implicit
predicate
application
due
process
standards
flagg
brothers
distinguished
ground
overt
official
involvement
property
deprivation
overt
action
state
officer
flagg
brothers
although
case
falls
sniadach
flagg
brothers
side
distinction
appeals
thought
garnishment
attachment
cases
irrelevant
none
fuentes
arose
fuentes
distinguishable
determined
ignore
issue
case
whether
state
action
rather
whether
respondents
acted
color
state
law
see
however
two
concepts
easily
disentangled
whether
identical
requirements
obviously
related
indeed
recently
distinguish
two
requirements
price
explicitly
stated
requirements
identical
cases
color
law
consistently
treated
thing
state
action
required
fourteenth
amendment
support
proposition
cited
smith
allwright
terry
adams
cases
black
voters
texas
challenged
exclusion
party
primaries
violation
fifteenth
amendment
sought
relief
case
understood
problem
whether
discriminatory
policy
private
political
association
characterized
state
action
within
meaning
fifteenth
amendment
smith
supra
found
state
action
constitution
inquiry
whether
action
political
associations
also
met
statutory
requirement
action
color
state
law
similarly
clear
action
brought
state
official
statutory
requirement
action
color
state
law
state
action
requirement
fourteenth
amendment
identical
conclusion
classic
isuse
power
possessed
virtue
state
law
made
possible
wrongdoer
clothed
authority
state
law
action
taken
color
state
law
founded
rule
announced
ex
parte
virginia
actions
state
officer
exceeds
limits
authority
constitute
state
action
purposes
fourteenth
amendment
decision
appeals
rests
misreading
flagg
brothers
case
distinguished
two
elements
action
plaintiffs
first
bound
show
deprived
right
secured
constitution
laws
must
secondly
show
flagg
brothers
deprived
right
acting
color
statute
state
new
york
clear
two
elements
denote
two
separate
areas
inquiry
adickes
kress
reason
flagg
brothers
address
question
whether
action
color
state
law
expressly
eschewed
deciding
whether
requirement
satisfied
private
action
authorized
state
law
although
requirements
separate
areas
inquiry
flagg
brothers
hold
suggest
state
action
present
might
satisfy
requirement
conduct
color
state
law
nevertheless
appeals
relied
flagg
brothers
conclude
case
state
action
fourteenth
amendment
necessarily
action
color
state
law
purposes
agree
approach
cause
action
referred
flagg
brothers
derived
adickes
kress
adickes
action
brought
private
party
based
claim
racial
discrimination
violation
equal
protection
clause
fourteenth
amendment
although
stating
plaintiff
must
show
deprived
right
secured
constitution
laws
defendant
acted
color
statute
state
held
private
party
joint
participation
state
official
conspiracy
discriminate
constitute
state
action
essential
show
direct
violation
petitioner
fourteenth
amendment
equal
protection
rights
action
color
law
purposes
statute
support
conclusion
private
party
held
violated
fourteenth
amendment
liable
cited
part
price
concluded
state
action
action
color
state
law
quoted
supra
adickes
provides
support
appeals
novel
construction
decision
appeals
difficult
reconcile
garnishment
prejudgment
attachment
cases
congressional
purpose
enacting
beginning
sniadach
family
finance
consistently
held
constitutional
requirements
due
process
apply
garnishment
prejudgment
attachment
procedures
whenever
officers
state
act
jointly
creditor
securing
property
dispute
sniadach
north
georgia
finishing
involved
garnishment
procedures
mitchell
grant
involved
execution
vendor
lien
secure
disputed
property
cases
state
agents
aided
creditor
securing
disputed
property
case
federal
issue
arose
litigation
creditor
debtor
state
courts
state
official
named
party
nevertheless
case
entertained
adjudicated
claim
procedure
private
creditor
secured
disputed
property
violated
federal
constitutional
standards
due
process
necessary
conclusion
holding
private
use
challenged
state
procedures
help
state
officials
constitutes
state
action
purposes
fourteenth
amendment
fuentes
shevin
action
brought
private
creditor
state
attorney
general
plaintiff
sought
declaratory
injunctive
relief
due
process
grounds
continued
enforcement
state
statutes
authorizing
prejudgment
replevin
plaintiff
prevailed
appeals
correct
case
cause
action
private
parties
yet
remained
parties
judgment
ran
defendant
debtor
debt
collection
proceedings
successfully
challenge
federal
due
process
grounds
plaintiff
creditor
resort
procedures
authorized
state
statute
difficult
understand
behavior
plaintiff
provide
cause
action
violates
due
process
rights
seizing
property
accordance
statutory
procedures
little
reason
deny
latter
cause
action
federal
statute
designed
provide
judicial
redress
constitutional
violations
read
color
statute
language
act
way
impose
limit
fourteenth
amendment
violations
may
redressed
cause
action
wholly
inconsistent
purpose
civil
rights
act
stat
derived
act
passed
express
purpose
enforc
ing
provisions
fourteenth
amendment
lynch
household
finance
history
act
replete
statements
indicating
congress
thought
creating
remedy
broad
protection
fourteenth
amendment
affords
individual
perhaps
direct
statement
senator
edmunds
manager
bill
senate
section
simple
really
reenact
constitution
cong
globe
representative
bingham
similarly
stated
bill
purpose
enforcement
constitution
behalf
every
individual
citizen
republic
extent
rights
guarantied
constitution
app
sum
line
drawn
appeals
inconsistent
prior
cases
substantially
undercut
congressional
purpose
providing
cause
action
challenged
conduct
respondents
constitutes
state
action
delimited
prior
decisions
conduct
also
action
color
state
law
support
suit
iii
matter
substantive
constitutional
law
requirement
reflects
judicial
recognition
fact
rights
secured
constitution
protected
infringement
governments
flagg
brothers
said
jackson
metropolitan
edison
civil
rights
cases
affirmed
essential
dichotomy
set
forth
fourteenth
amendment
deprivation
state
subject
scrutiny
provisions
private
conduct
however
discriminatory
wrongful
fourteenth
amendment
offers
shield
cases
accordingly
insisted
conduct
allegedly
causing
deprivation
federal
right
fairly
attributable
state
cases
reflect
approach
question
fair
attribution
first
deprivation
must
caused
exercise
right
privilege
created
state
rule
conduct
imposed
state
person
state
responsible
sniadach
fuentes
grant
north
georgia
example
state
statute
provided
right
garnish
obtain
prejudgment
attachment
well
procedure
rights
exercised
second
party
charged
deprivation
must
person
may
fairly
said
state
actor
may
state
official
acted
together
obtained
significant
aid
state
officials
conduct
otherwise
chargeable
state
without
limit
private
parties
face
constitutional
litigation
whenever
seek
rely
state
rule
governing
interactions
community
surrounding
although
related
two
principles
collapse
claim
constitutional
deprivation
directed
party
whose
official
character
lend
weight
state
decisions
see
monroe
pape
two
principles
diverge
constitutional
claim
directed
party
without
apparent
authority
private
party
difference
two
inquiries
well
illustrated
comparing
moose
lodge
irvis
flagg
brothers
supra
moose
lodge
held
discriminatory
practices
appellant
violate
equal
protection
clause
practices
constitute
state
action
focused
primarily
question
whether
admittedly
discriminatory
policy
way
ascribed
governmental
decision
inquiry
therefore
looked
policies
adopted
state
applied
appellant
concluded
follows
therefore
hold
exception
hereafter
noted
operation
regulatory
scheme
enforced
pennsylvania
liquor
control
board
sufficiently
implicate
state
discriminatory
guest
policies
moose
lodge
make
latter
state
action
within
ambit
equal
protection
clause
fourteenth
amendment
flagg
brothers
focused
component
principle
case
warehouseman
proceeded
new
york
uniform
commercial
code
debtor
challenged
constitutionality
provision
grounds
violated
due
process
equal
protection
clauses
fourteenth
amendment
undoubtedly
state
responsible
statute
response
however
focused
terms
statute
character
defendant
suit
action
private
party
pursuant
statute
without
something
sufficient
justify
characterization
party
state
actor
suggested
something
convert
private
party
state
actor
might
vary
circumstances
case
simply
recognition
articulated
number
different
factors
tests
different
contexts
public
function
test
see
terry
adams
marsh
alabama
state
compulsion
test
see
adickes
kress
nexus
test
see
jackson
metropolitan
edison
burton
wilmington
parking
authority
case
prejudgment
attachments
joint
action
test
flagg
brothers
whether
different
tests
actually
different
operation
simply
different
ways
characterizing
necessarily
inquiry
confronts
situation
need
resolved
see
burton
supra
sifting
facts
weighing
circumstances
nonobvious
involvement
state
private
conduct
attributed
true
significance
iv
turning
case
first
question
whether
claimed
deprivation
resulted
exercise
right
privilege
source
state
authority
second
question
whether
facts
case
respondents
private
parties
may
appropriately
characterized
state
actors
district
appeals
noted
ambiguous
scope
petitioner
contentions
considerable
confusion
throughout
litigation
question
whether
lugar
ultimate
claim
unconstitutional
deprivation
directed
virginia
statute
erroneous
application
courts
held
resolution
ambiguity
necessary
disposition
case
resolved
case
favor
view
petitioner
attacking
constitutionality
statute
well
misapplication
view
resolution
issue
essential
proper
disposition
case
petitioner
presented
three
counts
complaint
count
three
pendent
claim
based
state
tort
law
counts
one
two
claimed
violations
due
process
clause
count
two
alleged
deprivation
property
resulted
respondents
malicious
wanton
willful
opressive
sic
unlawful
acts
unlawful
petitioner
apparently
meant
unlawful
state
law
say
however
say
conduct
petitioner
complained
ascribed
governmental
decision
rather
respondents
acting
contrary
relevant
policy
articulated
state
authority
state
officials
put
weight
state
behind
private
decision
case
fall
within
abuse
authority
doctrine
recognized
monroe
pape
respondents
invoked
statute
without
grounds
way
attributed
state
rule
state
decision
count
two
therefore
state
cause
action
challenges
private
action
count
one
different
matter
count
describes
procedures
followed
respondents
obtaining
prejudgment
attachment
well
fact
state
subsequently
ordered
attachment
dismissed
respondents
met
burden
state
law
petitioner
summarily
sequence
events
deprived
property
without
due
process
although
clear
whether
petitioner
referring
procedure
misuse
procedure
respondents
agree
lower
courts
better
reading
complaint
petitioner
challenges
state
statute
procedurally
defective
fourteenth
amendment
private
misuse
state
statute
describe
conduct
attributed
state
procedural
scheme
created
statute
obviously
product
state
action
subject
constitutional
restraints
properly
may
addressed
action
second
element
requirement
met
well
clear
discussion
part
ii
consistently
held
private
party
joint
participation
state
officials
seizure
disputed
property
sufficient
characterize
party
state
actor
purposes
fourteenth
amendment
rule
cases
articulated
adickes
kress
supra
context
equal
protection
deprivation
private
persons
jointly
engaged
state
officials
prohibited
action
acting
color
law
purposes
statute
act
color
law
require
accused
officer
state
enough
willful
participant
joint
activity
state
agents
quoting
price
summary
petitioner
deprived
property
state
action
respondents
therefore
acting
color
state
law
participating
deprivation
petitioner
present
valid
cause
action
insofar
challenged
constitutionality
virginia
statute
insofar
alleged
misuse
abuse
statute
judgment
reversed
part
affirmed
part
case
remanded
proceedings
consistent
opinion
ordered
footnotes
every
person
color
statute
ordinance
regulation
custom
usage
state
territory
subjects
causes
subjected
citizen
person
within
jurisdiction
thereof
deprivation
rights
privileges
immunities
secured
constitution
laws
shall
liable
party
injured
action
law
suit
equity
proper
proceeding
redress
time
attachment
question
section
codified
code
principal
action
proceeded
entry
judgment
debt
favor
edmondson
petitioner
property
sold
execution
judgment
answer
respondents
motion
dismiss
abstention
grounds
petitioner
stated
question
constitutional
validity
state
statutes
made
plaintiff
memorandum
opposition
motion
dismiss
district
responded
follows
espite
plaintiff
protests
contrary
complaint
read
challenging
constitutionality
virginia
attachment
statute
app
pet
cert
appeals
agreed
case
originally
argued
panel
appeals
however
acting
sua
sponte
set
matter
rehearing
en
banc
justice
powell
suggests
opinion
consistent
mode
inquiry
prescribed
cases
post
believe
situation
opposite
rely
precisely
upon
ground
majority
put
forth
flagg
brothers
distinguish
case
earlier
prejudgment
attachment
cases
total
absence
overt
official
involvement
plainly
distinguishes
case
earlier
decisions
imposing
procedural
restrictions
creditors
remedies
justice
powell
point
mentions
aspect
flagg
brothers
decision
method
inquiry
adopt
suggested
adickes
kress
seemingly
approved
flagg
brothers
joint
action
state
official
accomplish
prejudgment
deprivation
constitutionally
protected
property
interest
support
claim
private
party
appeals
held
fuentes
shevin
relevant
defendants
case
included
state
attorney
general
well
private
creditor
view
presence
state
official
made
private
party
defendant
merely
nominal
party
action
injunctive
relief
judge
butzner
dissent
found
fuentes
directly
controlling
appeals
recognized
stated
two
three
basic
patterns
litigation
defendant
public
official
private
party
distinction
state
action
action
color
state
law
joint
action
private
parties
state
officials
stated
distinction
arise
two
requirements
also
stated
indictment
allege
conduct
part
private
defendants
constitutes
state
action
alleges
action
color
law
within
monroe
pape
held
color
law
meaning
besides
two
cases
cited
number
lower
cases
support
proposition
constitutional
concept
state
action
satisfies
statutory
requirement
action
color
state
law
simkins
moses
cone
memorial
hospital
smith
holiday
inns
hampton
city
jacksonville
boman
birmingham
transit
kerr
enoch
pratt
free
library
cases
involved
litigation
private
parties
plaintiffs
alleged
unconstitutional
discrimination
case
inquiry
whether
defendant
met
requirement
fourteenth
amendment
requirement
met
courts
granted
relief
sought
title
ed
reclassified
opinion
terry
adams
three
opinions
support
reversal
lower
decision
pose
question
whether
action
private
political
association
question
jaybird
democratic
association
constituted
state
action
purposes
fifteenth
amendment
none
suggests
fifteenth
amendment
violation
private
association
might
support
cause
action
failure
prove
action
color
state
law
classic
involve
directly
rather
interpreted
ed
criminal
counterpart
see
supra
relationship
adickes
opinion
contained
following
statement
whatever
else
may
also
necessary
show
person
acted
color
statute
purposes
think
essential
act
knowledge
pursuant
statute
statement
obviously
meant
neither
establish
definition
action
color
state
law
establish
distinction
statutory
requirement
constitutional
standard
state
action
statement
made
response
argument
discrimination
private
party
pursuant
state
trespass
statute
satisfy
requirements
rejected
factual
showing
defendants
acted
knowledge
pursuant
statute
context
statement
made
justice
brennan
writing
separately
suggest
adickes
private
party
acts
alone
must
shown
establish
acts
color
state
statute
authority
needed
show
action
constitutes
state
action
omitted
even
view
however
private
party
acts
conjunction
state
official
whatever
satisfies
requirement
fourteenth
amendment
satisfies
requirement
statute
justice
brennan
position
rested
least
part
much
less
strict
standard
constitute
state
action
area
racial
discrimination
adopted
majority
case
position
articulated
never
adopted
justice
powell
discussion
adickes
confuses
two
counts
complaint
case
conspiracy
count
alleged
respondent
private
party
police
officer
conspired
deprive
petitioner
right
enjoy
equal
treatment
service
place
public
accommodation
cause
arrest
false
charge
vagrancy
respect
count
allege
unconstitutional
statute
custom
held
joint
action
private
party
police
officer
sufficient
support
suit
party
count
complaint
substantive
count
alleged
private
act
discrimination
pursuant
custom
community
segregate
races
public
eating
places
rely
joint
action
theory
held
petitioner
show
abridgment
equal
protection
right
proves
kress
refused
service
custom
justice
powell
wrong
summarizes
adickes
holding
private
party
acts
color
law
conspires
state
officials
secure
application
state
law
plainly
unconstitutional
enjoy
presumption
validity
post
confuse
conspiracy
substantive
counts
issue
adickes
unless
one
argues
state
vagrancy
law
unconstitutional
argument
one
made
adickes
joint
action
count
adickes
involve
state
law
whether
plainly
unconstitutional
thus
find
incomprehensible
justice
powell
statement
cite
cases
private
decision
invoke
presumptively
valid
state
legal
process
held
state
action
post
likewise
discussion
cases
post
steadfastly
ignores
predicate
holding
case
debtor
challenge
constitutional
adequacy
private
creditor
seizure
property
predicate
necessarily
principle
private
party
invocation
seemingly
valid
prejudgment
remedy
statute
coupled
aid
state
official
satisfies
requirement
fourteenth
amendment
warrants
relief
private
party
fact
throughout
congressional
debate
act
bill
officially
described
bill
enforce
provisions
fourteenth
amendment
constitution
purposes
see
also
remarks
senator
trumbull
describing
purpose
house
passing
act
bill
passed
house
representatives
understood
members
body
go
protect
persons
rights
guarantied
constitution
laws
cong
globe
remarks
representative
shellabarger
relationship
bill
fourteenth
amendment
app
conclusion
case
inconsistent
statement
flagg
brothers
two
elements
state
action
action
color
state
law
denote
two
separate
areas
inquiry
first
although
hold
conduct
satisfying
requirement
fourteenth
amendment
satisfies
statutory
requirement
action
color
state
law
follow
conduct
satisfies
requirement
satisfy
fourteenth
amendment
requirement
state
action
action
color
state
law
means
nothing
individual
act
knowledge
pursuant
statute
adickes
kress
clearly
flagg
brothers
satisfy
requirement
fourteenth
amendment
second
although
hold
case
requirement
add
anything
already
included
within
requirement
fourteenth
amendment
applicable
constitutional
provisions
statutory
provisions
contain
requirement
federal
right
issue
statutory
concept
action
color
state
law
distinct
element
case
satisfied
implicitly
finding
violation
particular
federal
right
decision
today
inconsistent
polk
county
dodson
polk
county
held
public
defender
actions
performing
lawyer
traditional
functions
counsel
state
criminal
proceeding
support
suit
although
analyzed
public
defender
conduct
light
requirement
action
color
state
law
specifically
stated
necessary
case
consider
whether
requirement
identical
state
action
requirement
fourteenth
amendment
although
sometimes
treated
questions
identical
see
price
need
consider
relationship
order
decide
case
concluded
public
defender
although
state
employee
defense
client
acts
canons
professional
ethics
role
adversarial
state
accordingly
although
state
employment
generally
sufficient
render
defendant
state
actor
analysis
infra
peculiarly
difficult
detect
action
state
circumstances
case
polk
county
also
rejected
respondent
claims
governmental
agencies
failed
allege
policy
arguably
violated
rights
sixth
eighth
fourteenth
amendments
respondent
failed
challenge
rule
conduct
decision
state
responsible
allegations
support
claim
state
action
analysis
proposed
infra
thus
decision
today
suggest
different
outcome
polk
county
elements
inquiry
opinion
well
found
primarily
effort
distinguish
relationship
moose
lodge
state
state
restaurant
considered
burton
wilmington
parking
authority
see
one
exception
illustrates
point
enjoined
enforcement
state
rule
requiring
moose
lodge
comply
constitution
bylaws
insofar
contained
racially
discriminatory
provisions
state
enforcement
rule
either
judicially
administratively
circumstances
amount
governmental
decision
adopt
racially
discriminatory
policy
contrary
suggestion
justice
powell
dissent
hold
today
private
party
mere
invocation
state
legal
procedures
constitutes
joint
participation
conspiracy
state
officials
satisfying
requirement
action
color
law
post
holding
today
analysis
makes
clear
limited
particular
context
prejudgment
attachment
confusion
nature
petitioner
allegations
continued
oral
argument
although
various
times
counsel
petitioner
seemed
deny
petitioner
challenged
constitutionality
statute
see
tr
oral
arg
also
stated
claim
action
taken
even
line
line
accordance
virginia
law
whether
right
claim
violation
lugar
constitutional
rights
justice
powell
concerned
private
individuals
innocently
make
use
seemingly
valid
state
laws
responsible
law
subsequently
held
unconstitutional
consequences
actions
view
however
problem
dealt
changing
character
cause
action
establishing
affirmative
defense
similar
concern
least
partially
responsible
availability
defense
qualified
immunity
state
officials
need
reach
question
availability
defense
private
individuals
juncture
said
adickes
confronted
question
applicable
today
intimate
views
concerning
relief
might
appropriate
violation
shown
parties
briefed
remedial
issues
violation
proved
best
explored
first
instance
light
new
record
developed
remand
mean
determine
juncture
whether
defenses
available
defendants
actions
like
one
hand
cf
pierson
ray
citations
omitted
whether
dealing
suits
suits
brought
pursuant
fourteenth
amendment
view
inquiry
claimed
infringement
federal
right
fairly
attributable
state
kohn
ante
applying
standard
said
actions
named
respondents
fairly
attributable
state
respondents
invoke
presumptively
valid
state
prejudgment
attachment
procedure
available
relying
dubious
analysis
erroneously
concludes
subsequent
procedural
steps
taken
state
attaching
putative
debtor
property
way
transforms
respondents
acts
actions
state
case
different
situation
private
party
commences
lawsuit
secures
injunctive
relief
even
temporary
may
cause
significant
injury
defendant
invoking
judicial
process
course
implicates
state
officers
transform
essentially
private
conduct
actions
state
dennis
sparks
similarly
one
practices
trade
profession
drives
automobile
builds
house
state
license
engaging
acts
fairly
attributable
state
dennis
instant
case
petitioner
remedy
lies
private
suits
damages
malicious
prosecution
opinion
expands
reach
statute
beyond
anything
intended
congress
may
well
consequence
casually
falling
semantical
trap
figurative
use
term
color
state
law
pleadings
case
amply
demonstrate
challenged
conduct
directed
solely
respondents
acts
unlawful
actions
alleged
respondents
made
conclusory
allegations
app
respondents
lacked
factual
basis
attachment
respondents
lacked
good
cause
believe
facts
support
attachment
allegation
collusion
conspiracy
state
actors
justice
powell
justice
rehnquist
justice
join
dissenting
today
decision
disquieting
example
expansive
judicial
decisionmaking
ensnare
person
every
reason
believe
acting
strict
accordance
law
case
began
nearly
five
years
ago
outgrowth
simple
suit
debt
virginia
state
respondent
small
wholesale
oil
dealer
southside
brought
suit
petitioner
lugar
truckstop
owner
failed
pay
debt
suit
collect
indebtedness
fearful
petitioner
might
dissipate
assets
debt
collected
respondent
also
filed
petition
state
seeking
sequestration
certain
lugar
assets
virginia
statute
traceable
least
permits
creditors
seek
prejudgment
attachment
property
possession
debtors
questioned
validity
statute
remains
presumptively
valid
clerk
state
duly
issued
writ
attachment
county
sheriff
executed
allegation
respondent
conspired
state
officials
deny
petitioner
fair
protection
state
federal
law
respondent
ultimately
prevailed
lawsuit
petitioner
lugar
ordered
pay
debt
state
find
however
lugar
assets
attached
prior
judgment
underlying
action
following
decision
lugar
instituted
legal
action
district
western
district
virginia
suing
federal
statute
lugar
alleged
respondent
filing
petition
state
acted
color
law
caused
deprivation
constitutional
rights
fourteenth
amendment
amendment
create
rights
enforceable
private
citizens
one
assumed
respondent
kohn
ante
flagg
brooks
shelley
kraemer
civil
rights
cases
district
appeals
agreed
petitioner
cause
action
sensibly
found
respondent
held
responsible
deprivation
constitutional
rights
suit
belong
federal
today
reverses
judgment
lower
courts
holds
respondent
private
citizen
commence
legal
action
kind
traditionally
initiated
private
parties
thereby
engaged
state
action
decision
unprecedented
implausible
plainly
unjust
respondent
makes
argument
contrary
respondent
represented
counsel
notion
filing
petition
state
effort
secure
payment
private
debt
made
state
actor
liable
damages
allegedly
unconstitutional
action
commonwealth
virginia
analysis
consistent
mode
inquiry
prescribed
cases
contrary
undermines
fundamental
distinctions
categories
state
private
conduct
legal
concepts
state
action
private
action
color
law
plain
language
establishes
plaintiff
must
satisfy
two
jurisdictional
requisites
state
actionable
claim
first
must
allege
violation
right
secured
constitution
laws
rights
secured
constitution
protected
infringement
governments
flagg
brooks
requirement
compels
inquiry
presence
state
action
second
plaintiff
must
show
alleged
deprivation
caused
person
acting
color
law
flagg
affirmed
two
elements
denote
two
separate
areas
inquiry
see
adickes
kress
case
demonstrates
separate
inquiries
required
disputed
virginia
sheriff
clerk
state
officials
sequestered
petitioner
property
manner
provided
virginia
law
engaged
state
action
yet
petitioner
alleging
constitutional
injury
action
state
officials
sue
state
agents
circumstances
appeals
correctly
stated
relevant
inquiry
second
identified
flagg
whether
respondent
private
citizen
whose
action
invoke
presumptively
valid
state
attachment
process
acted
color
state
law
causing
state
deprive
petitioner
alleged
constitutional
rights
consistently
past
decisions
appeals
concluded
respondent
private
conduct
occurred
color
law
rejecting
reasoning
appeals
opinion
inexplicably
conflates
two
inquiries
mandated
flagg
bros
ignoring
case
involves
two
sets
actions
one
respondent
merely
filed
suit
accompanying
sequestration
petition
another
state
officials
issued
writ
executed
lien
wrongly
frames
question
whether
private
respondent
acted
color
law
filing
petition
whether
respondents
private
parties
may
appropriately
characterized
state
actors
ante
concludes
may
theory
private
party
invokes
aid
state
officials
take
advantage
attachment
procedures
joint
participant
state
therefore
state
actor
rule
asserts
follows
private
persons
jointly
engaged
state
officials
prohibited
action
acting
color
law
purposes
statute
act
color
law
require
accused
officer
state
enough
willful
participant
joint
activity
state
agents
ante
quoting
adickes
kress
supra
turn
quoting
price
ii
recognized
monroe
pape
historic
purpose
prevent
state
officials
using
cloak
authority
state
law
violate
rights
protected
state
infringement
fourteenth
amendment
accordingly
correct
important
inquiry
suit
private
party
whether
allegation
wrongful
conduct
attributed
state
ante
first
question
referred
flagg
bros
still
remains
second
flagg
question
whether
state
action
fairly
attributed
respondent
whose
action
invoke
presumptively
valid
attachment
statute
question
unasked
reveals
fallacy
conclusion
respondent
may
held
accountable
attachment
property
state
actor
occurrence
state
action
taken
sheriff
sequestered
petitioner
property
follow
respondent
became
state
actor
simply
sheriff
today
never
endorsed
non
sequitur
course
true
respondent
private
action
followed
state
action
private
state
actions
unconnected
hat
state
responds
private
actions
taking
action
render
responsible
private
actions
blum
yaretsky
post
see
flagg
jackson
metropolitan
edison
state
responsible
private
decision
behave
certain
way
private
action
generally
considered
state
action
within
meaning
cases
see
blum
yaretsky
post
moose
lodge
irvis
jackson
metropolitan
edison
supra
espondent
exercise
choice
allowed
state
law
initiative
comes
state
make
action
state
action
purposes
fourteenth
amendment
omitted
course
held
private
parties
amenable
suit
jointly
engaged
state
officials
violation
constitutional
rights
see
adickes
kress
yet
advancing
joint
participation
theory
cite
single
case
private
decision
invoke
presumptively
valid
state
legal
process
held
constitute
state
action
even
quotation
principally
relies
statement
applicable
rule
ante
refer
state
action
rather
explicitly
rivate
persons
jointly
engaged
state
officials
prohibited
action
acting
color
law
purposes
statute
illustrated
quotation
cases
recognized
distinction
state
action
private
action
color
law
distinction
sound
principle
also
consistent
supportive
distinction
private
conduct
government
action
subject
procedural
limitations
due
process
clause
fourteenth
amendment
notes
careful
adherence
state
action
requirement
preserves
area
individual
freedom
limiting
reach
federal
law
federal
judicial
power
also
avoids
imposing
state
agencies
officials
responsibility
conduct
fairly
blamed
ante
color
law
inquiry
acknowledges
private
individuals
engaged
unlawful
joint
behavior
state
officials
may
personally
responsible
wrongs
cause
occur
confuse
private
actors
state
fallacy
analysis
adopted
today
case
involving
private
action
respondent
petitioning
state
courts
virginia
appropriate
inquiry
respondent
liability
whether
state
actor
whether
acted
color
law
question
therefore
turn
iii
contrary
position
cases
establish
private
party
mere
invocation
state
legal
procedures
constitutes
joint
participation
conspiracy
state
officials
satisfying
requirement
action
color
law
dennis
sparks
held
private
parties
acted
color
law
corruptly
conspiring
state
judge
joint
scheme
defraud
holding
however
explicitly
stated
merely
resorting
courts
winning
side
lawsuit
make
party
joint
actor
judge
conclusion
reinforced
recent
decision
polk
county
dodson
held
true
respect
defense
criminal
defendant
invocation
state
legal
process
essentially
private
function
state
office
authority
needed
recent
decisions
make
clear
independent
private
decisions
made
context
litigation
said
occur
color
law
nevertheless
advances
two
principal
grounds
holding
contrary
argues
petitioner
action
supported
cases
applied
due
process
standards
state
garnishment
prejudgment
attachment
procedures
relies
specifically
sniadach
family
finance
fuentes
shevin
mitchell
grant
north
georgia
finishing
according
cases
establish
private
party
acts
color
law
seeking
attachment
property
unconstitutional
state
statute
fact
careful
reading
demonstrates
provide
authority
proposition
cases
cited
sniadach
mitchell
involved
attacks
validity
state
attachment
garnishment
statutes
none
cases
alleged
private
creditor
joint
actor
state
none
involved
claim
damages
creditor
case
involved
state
suit
federal
action
therefore
unnecessary
cases
consider
whether
creditor
virtue
instituting
attachment
garnishment
became
state
actor
acted
color
state
law
one
word
cases
characterizes
private
creditor
fuentes
shevin
consider
action
private
creditor
well
state
attorney
general
however
question
validity
state
statute
claim
made
creditor
joint
actor
state
acted
color
law
damages
sought
creditor
occasion
consider
status
private
party
word
opinion
discusses
sniadach
mitchell
fuentes
thus
fails
establish
private
party
mere
invocation
state
attachment
garnishment
procedures
represents
action
color
law
even
case
procedures
subsequently
held
unconstitutional
addition
relying
cases
involving
constitutionality
state
attachment
garnishment
statutes
advances
joint
participation
theory
based
adickes
kress
adickes
plaintiff
sued
private
restaurant
alleging
conspiracy
restaurant
local
police
deprive
right
equal
treatment
place
public
accommodation
reversing
decision
upheld
cause
action
found
private
defendant
conspiring
local
police
obtain
official
enforcement
state
custom
racial
segregation
engaged
joint
activity
state
agents
therefore
acted
color
law
within
meaning
quoting
price
contrary
suggestion
however
justice
harlan
opinion
adickes
purport
define
term
color
law
attending
closely
facts
presented
observed
hatever
else
may
also
necessary
show
person
acted
color
statute
purposes
think
essential
act
knowledge
pursuant
statute
emphasis
added
indicated
choice
language
clearly
seems
contemplated
limiting
principle
citizen
summoning
police
enforce
law
ordinarily
considered
engaged
conspiracy
presumably
citizen
characterized
acting
color
law
thereby
risking
amenability
suit
constitutional
violations
subsequently
might
occur
surely
nothing
adickes
indicate
found
action
color
law
cases
kind
although
adickes
distinguishable
hypotheticals
current
case
conduct
adickes
occurred
years
brown
board
education
decade
publicized
litigation
followed
wake
view
intense
national
focus
issues
racial
discrimination
virtually
inconceivable
private
citizen
acted
innocent
belief
state
law
customs
involved
adickes
still
presumptively
valid
justice
harlan
wrote
ew
principles
law
firmly
stitched
constitutional
fabric
proposition
state
must
discriminate
person
race
race
companions
way
act
compel
encourage
segregation
construed
resting
basis
adickes
establishes
private
party
acts
color
law
conspires
state
officials
secure
application
state
law
plainly
unconstitutional
enjoy
presumption
validity
context
private
party
characterized
hiding
behind
authority
law
engaging
joint
participation
state
deprivation
constitutional
rights
however
petitioner
alleged
conspiracy
even
alleged
respondent
invoking
aid
law
known
constitutionally
invalid
finally
allegation
respondent
decision
invoke
legal
process
way
compelled
law
custom
state
lived
context
adickes
simply
inapposite
today
decision
therefore
unprecedented
unjust
state
action
filed
name
edmondson
oil
alleged
lugar
owed
products
merchandise
previously
delivered
app
present
suit
lugar
named
defendants
edmondson
oil
president
ronald
barbour
respondent
barbour
sole
stockholder
edmondson
oil
appears
directed
actions
litigation
see
refer
throughout
barbour
sole
respondent
see
code
et
seq
time
attachment
case
applicable
provisions
code
et
seq
virginia
attachment
provisions
remained
essentially
present
form
despite
numerous
recodifications
since
see
code
et
seq
code
et
seq
code
et
seq
code
ch
code
ch
title
time
question
provided
every
person
color
statute
ordinance
regulation
custom
usage
state
territory
subjects
causes
subjected
citizen
person
within
jurisdiction
thereof
deprivation
rights
privileges
immunities
secured
constitution
laws
shall
liable
party
injured
action
law
suit
equity
proper
proceeding
redress
judge
phillips
excellent
opinion
en
banc
appeals
correctly
defined
question
presented
whether
mere
institution
private
litigant
presumptively
valid
state
judicial
proceedings
without
prior
subsequent
collusion
concerted
action
litigant
state
officials
proceed
adjudicative
administrative
executive
enforcement
proceedings
constitutes
action
color
state
law
within
contemplation
omitted
state
officials
acting
official
capacities
even
abuse
lawful
authority
generally
held
act
color
law
monroe
pape
ex
parte
virginia
officials
clothed
authority
state
law
gives
power
perpetrate
wrongs
congress
intended
prevent
classic
ex
parte
virginia
supra
cf
polk
county
dodson
public
defender
representing
indigent
client
criminal
proceeding
performs
function
authority
state
office
needed
therefore
act
color
state
law
engaged
defense
attorney
traditionally
private
roles
ante
quotes
price
establishing
cases
color
law
consistently
treated
thing
state
action
required
fourteenth
amendment
price
however
conduct
actors
constituted
state
action
action
color
law
see
indictment
alleges
conduct
part
private
defendants
constitutes
state
action
also
alleges
action
color
law
situation
case
quite
different
present
case
involves
state
action
sheriff
action
also
color
law
price
real
question
whether
conduct
private
respondent
constituted
either
state
action
action
color
law
price
quotation
plainly
resolve
question
cases
cited
price
also
relies
similarly
inapposite
adickes
term
jointly
engaged
appears
used
specifically
connote
engagement
conspiracy
see
avers
holding
limited
particular
context
prejudgment
attachment
ante
however
welcome
limitation
lacks
principled
basis
unclear
private
party
engages
state
action
filing
papers
seeking
attachment
property
seeking
relief
injunction
summoning
police
investigate
suspected
crime
one
stage
litigation
respondent
averred
lawsuit
raised
question
constitutional
validity
state
statutes
plaintiff
memorandum
opposition
motion
dismiss
district
nevertheless
concluded
complaint
read
challenging
constitutionality
virginia
attachment
statute
app
pet
cert
appeals
agreed
finds
support
contrary
view
reading
cases
implicitly
embracing
fallacy
today
sniadach
mitchell
case
question
state
action
occurred
official
state
undisputed
state
actor
undertaken
either
attach
property
garnish
wages
occurrence
state
action
state
officials
ipso
facto
establishes
private
plaintiffs
also
must
viewed
state
actors
given
presence
state
action
state
officials
however
need
inquire
whether
private
parties
also
state
actors
plain
opinions
cases
arising
state
need
consider
whether
private
defendants
acted
color
law
within
meaning
fuentes
consolidated
case
involving
similar
facts
epps
cortese
supp
ed
arguing
patent
unconstitutionality
racial
discrimination
irrelevant
conspiracy
count
adickes
charges
discussion
confuses
conspiracy
substantive
causes
action
ante
view
difficult
understand
adickes
private
defendant
allegedly
conspired
police
deprive
plaintiff
right
enjoy
equal
treatment
service
place
public
accommodation
apparently
cause
discriminatory
legally
baseless
arrest
vagrancy
statute
vagrancy
statute
challenged
invalid
face
concludes
joint
action
conspiracy
count
involve
state
law
whether
plainly
unconstitutional
ante
conclusion
simply
wrong
first
place
alleged
conspiracy
included
agreement
enforce
state
law
requiring
racial
segregation
restaurants
law
plainly
unconstitutional
even
vagrancy
statute
certainly
unconstitutional
applied
enforce
racial
segregation
presumably
reasons
agreed
private
defendant
conspir
ed
local
police
adickes
entirely
different
case
one
bar
least
one
scholarly
commentator
stated
cautious
conclusion
virginia
attachment
provisions
satisfy
standards
established
recent
due
process
decisions
see
brabham
sniadach
backwards
analysis
virginia
attachment
detinue
statutes
rich
rev
correctness
conclusion
course
issue
present
posture
case
directly
relevant
case
proper
resolution
suggests
respondent
may
entitled
claim
immunity
suit
civil
damages
ante
positive
suggestion
agree
holding
immunity
mitigate
ultimate
cost
litigation
however
convert
holding
one
case
already
litigation
nearly
five
years
remanded
proceedings
respondent
solely
undertook
assert
rights
authorized
presumptively
valid
state
statute
subjected
expense
distractions
hazards
protracted
litigation