Federal Jurisdiction under the Civil Rights Act - The Case against the Personal-Property Rights Distinction

ly stated, the Hague formula appeared to constitute a satisfactory, functional test for federal court jurisdiction under section 1343(3). Indeed, it has proved to be so in cases where the alleged deprivations clearly involve either personal or property rights. Federal courts, however, have experienced serious difficulty when attempting to apply the Hague formula to hybrid cases; i.e., cases where elements of personal rights and property rights are intermingled.8 5 Such hybrid cases generally involve rights which are personal in nature, but capable of pecuniary valuation as well. A brief history" of the cases decided subsequent to Hague clearly indicates the difficulty in applying the test; a difficulty which has led to inconsistent results between and within the circuits. 7 Fourth Circuits. Weddle v. Director, 436 F.2d 342, 343 (4th Cir. 1970); National Land & Inv. Co. v. Specter, 428 F.2d 91, 99 (3d Cir. 1970). 32. See Reich, The New Property, 73 YALE L.J. 733 (1964). 33. See note 37 infra. 34. See note 119 infra. 35. Examples of such rights are licenses and public employment. When there has been a denial or revocation of a license or a discharge from public employment without due process, there is a deprivation of both personal rights and property rights. 36. There are several articles, written prior to Eisen, which discuss the history of this area. See generally Laufer, Hague v. C.I.O.: Mr. Justice Stone's Test of Federal Jurisdiction A Reappraisal, 19 BUFF. L. REV. 547 (1970) ; Comment, supra note 6; Comment, The Proper Scope of the Civil Rights Acts, 66 HARV. L. REv. 1285 (1953) ; Comment, The "Property Rights" Exception To Civil Rights Jurisdiction Confusion Compounded, 43 N.Y.U.L. REv. 1208 (1968). 37. On one hand, the Hague formulation has been recently affirmed and followed in several circuits: Weddle v. Director, 436 F.2d 343 (4th Cir. 1970) ; National Land & Inv. Co. v. Specter, 428 F.2d 91 (3d Cir. 1970) ; Eisen v. Eastman, 421 F.2d 560 (2d Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 841 (1970) ; Howard v. Higgins, 379 F.2d 227 (10th Cir. 1967); Gray v. Morgan, 371 F.2d 172 (7th Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 1033 (1967); Ream v. Handley, 359 F.2d 728 (7th Cir. 1966); Fuller v. Volk, 351 F.2d 323 (3d Cir. 1965). Several circuits, however, have taken a more "latitudinarian" view: Willis v. Reddin, 418 F.2d 702 (9th Cir. 1969); Gomez v. State Employment Serv., 417 F.2d 569 (5th Cir. 1969) ; Berry v. Allen, 411 F.2d 1142 (6th Cir. 1969) ; Bowling Center, Inc. v. Allen, 389 F.2d 713 (5th Cir. 1968) ; Barnes v. Merritt, 376 F.2d 8 (5th Cir. 1967) ; Mansell v. Saunders, 372 F.2d 573 (5th Cir. 1967) ; Blume v. City of Deland, 358 F.2d 698 (5th Cir. 1966); McGuire v. Sadler, 337 F.2d 902 (5th Cir. 1964); Hornsby v. Allen, 326 F.2d 605 (5th Cir. 1964); Wall v. King, 206 F.2d 878 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 346 U.S. 915 (1953) ; Cobb v. City of Maden, 202 F.2d 701 (1st Cir. 1953) ; Glicker v. Liquor Control Comm'n, 160 F.2d 96 (6th Cir. 1947). But see Bussie v. Long, 383 F.2d 766 (5th Cir. 1967). As to the inconsistencies within a particular circuit, compare Russo v. Shapiro, 309 F. Supp. 385 (D. Conn. 1969), with Campagnuolo v. Harder, 319 F. Supp. 414 (D. Conn. 1970), and Roberts v. Harder, 320 F. Supp. 1313 (D. Conn. 1970). [VOL. 17 6 Villanova Law Review, Vol. 17, Iss. 2 [1971], Art. 4 http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/vlr/vol17/iss2/4