Also known as: suits of a civil nature · civil nature suit · civil suit · civil proceeding
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A proceeding in which a private party seeks redress for a private wrong or the enforcement of a private right. The proceeding is conducted under the preponderance of the evidence standard and does not place the defendant's life or liberty at risk.
After Samuel Soto is convicted of murdering his uncle, the estate's administrator files a petition in probate court to bar Samuel from inheriting under the will. The court applies the preponderance standard in the civil proceeding and treats the criminal conviction as conclusive proof that Samuel is the slayer.
Sophia Singh seeks to adopt a newborn and must locate the man listed on the state paternity registry. She serves notice of the adoption proceeding on the registered man by the method prescribed for service of process in civil actions.
Solomon Silver petitions to terminate the parental rights of a one-year-old child's alleged genetic father who never registered. The court requires Silver to serve notice on the alleged father by the method prescribed for service of process in civil actions.
Serena Soto and other members of an environmental group sue federal agencies over funding decisions that allegedly harm endangered species abroad. The court examines whether the plaintiffs have demonstrated the concrete injury and redressability required for a civil action to proceed.
In 1973 Congress enacted the Endangered Species Act to protect species of animals against threats to their continuing existence caused by man. In 1978 the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service issued a joint regulation interpreting section 7(a)(2) to require federal agencies to consult with the Secretary of the Interior on actions taken in foreign nations. In 1986 the Secretary promulgated a revised regulation that limited the consultation obligation to actions within the United States or on the high seas. Shortly after the 1986 regulation took effect, Defenders of Wildlife and other environmental organizations filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota against the Secretary of the Interior. The complaint sought a declaratory judgment that the regulation was invalid as to its geographic scope and an injunction requiring the Secretary to promulgate a new regulation mandating consultation for foreign projects. The complaint alleged that the absence of consultation would increase the rate of extinction of endangered and threatened species. The complaint further alleged that some of the organizations' members observed these species both domestically and abroad. Respondents supported their allegations with affidavits from two members. Joyce Kelly stated that she had traveled to Egypt in 1986, observed the habitat of the endangered Nile crocodile, and intended to return. Kelly further stated that she would suffer harm from the United States role in the rehabilitation of the Aswan High Dam. Amy Skilbred stated that she had traveled to Sri Lanka in 1981, observed the habitat of endangered species including the Asian elephant and leopard at the site of the Mahaweli project funded by the Agency for International Development, and intended to return. Skilbred admitted she had no current plans to return because of a civil war. The District Court dismissed the complaint for lack of standing. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed. On remand the District Court denied the Secretary's motion for summary judgment on standing. The District Court granted respondents' motion for summary judgment on the merits and enjoined the Secretary from applying the regulation to foreign countries. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseSouthland Foods is sued by a former employee alleging race discrimination. During jury selection in the civil trial, the company's counsel uses peremptory strikes to remove all Black venire members, prompting the court to apply equal-protection limits on private litigants in civil proceedings.
Thaddeus Donald Edmonson, a black construction worker, was injured in a jobsite accident at Fort Polk, Louisiana, a federal enclave, when a Leesville Concrete Company employee permitted one of the company's trucks to roll backward and pin him against some construction equipment. Edmonson sued Leesville Concrete Company for negligence in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana and invoked his Seventh Amendment right to a trial by jury. During voir dire, Leesville used two of its three peremptory challenges authorized by statute to remove black persons from the prospective jury. Edmonson, who is himself black, requested that the District Court require Leesville to articulate a race-neutral explanation for striking the two jurors, but the District Court denied the request on the ground that Batson does not apply in civil proceedings. As empaneled, the jury included 11 white persons and 1 black person. The jury rendered a verdict for Edmonson, assessing his total damages at $90,000, but attributed 80% of the fault to Edmonson's contributory negligence and awarded him the sum of $18,000. Edmonson appealed, and a divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that Batson applies to private litigants in civil trials. The full court then ordered rehearing en banc and affirmed the judgment of the District Court, holding that a private litigant in a civil case can exercise peremptory challenges without accountability for alleged racial classifications. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the issue.
View caseSteven Silva sues city police officers in federal court after they conduct a warrantless search of his home. The court treats the action as a civil suit under federal law to recover damages for the alleged constitutional violation.
On October 29, 1958, at approximately 5:45 a.m., thirteen Chicago police officers entered the apartment of James Monroe and his family without a search warrant or arrest warrant. The officers roused the Monroes from bed using flashlights and forced them at gunpoint to stand naked in the living room while ransacking every room, emptying drawers, and ripping mattress covers. Detective Pape struck Mr. Monroe several times with his flashlight and called him "nigger" and "black boy." Other officers hit and kicked several of the children and pushed them to the floor. Mr. Monroe was then taken to the police station and detained on open charges for ten hours. During this period he was interrogated about a murder, exhibited in lineups, and not permitted to call his family or attorney, although he was not brought before a magistrate despite their availability. He was released without any criminal charges being filed against him. The complaint alleged that these actions occurred under color of the statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs, and usages of Illinois and Chicago, and that the City had no rules or controls over its police officers, permitting them to act without restraint. The Monroes claimed deprivations of rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and sought compensatory and punitive damages from the officers and the City. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the judgment.
View caseThe question is resolved by a preponderance of the evidence. A final criminal conviction for the felonious and intentional killing conclusively establishes the person as the slayer in the civil proceeding.
Yes. Both the Uniform Parentage Act provisions require that notice to a registered father or an alleged genetic father be given in the manner prescribed for service of process in a civil proceeding in the state.
Yes. Standing doctrine applied in civil actions requires the plaintiff to show a concrete and particularized injury that is fairly traceable to the defendant's conduct and likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.
Yes. Jury selection in a civil proceeding is a traditional public function performed with court participation, so racially discriminatory use of peremptory challenges by private parties constitutes state action.
…only through the performance of his professional duties as an attorney. He did not become a public figure merely by filing a civil suit on behalf of his client. III The trial court in this case applied the New York Times standard to petitioner, a private individual. That was error. The jury was instructed that it…