Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 585

529US2

Unit: $U51

[09-26-01 10:31:04] PAGES PGT: OPIN

510

BECK v. PRUPIS

Stevens, J., dissenting

Assn., 37 N. J. 507, 516, 181 A. 2d 774, 780 (1962) (“[S]o much
of defendants’ motion as sought a dismissal of the complaint
as being insufﬁcient in law must fail,” but sustaining defend-
ants’ unrelated privilege defense); Halberstam v. Welch, 705
F. 2d 472, 489 (CADC 1983). The cases cited, in short, sim-
ply do not do the work the Court would have them do.4

Furthermore, at least some of the cases cited by the Court
speak generally of harm via any overt act, and not exclu-
sively of tortious acts.5
Indeed, some of the sources cited

4 The Court suggests that three of the cases cited deny recovery because
there was no actionable tort—and not, as I have suggested, because there
was no illegal agreement or because there was no injury. See ante, at
504–505, n. 8. At best, the Court’s reading only demonstrates that in
these cases the question whether the harmful overt act was a tort, on the
one hand, and the question whether there was any illegal agreement or
harm, on the other hand, are questions of overlapping substance. To the
extent that is true, however, the point does not support the Court’s view.
Rather, it only proves that the cases cited do not parse out elements (a),
(b), and (c) as the Court suggests they do. Moreover, as I stated at the
outset, both the Court and I assume that there has been an illegal conspir-
acy in this case.
If the cases the Court cites show that there was no
illegal agreement at all because there was no actionable tort, then the
cases cited by the Court simply contradict the central premise of the pres-
ent case, and are therefore inapposite.

5 See Earp v. Detroit, 16 Mich. App. 271, 275, 167 N. W. 2d 841, 845
(1969) (“There is no civil action for conspiracy alone. . . . It must be coupled
with the commission of acts which damaged the plaintiff ”); Lesperance v.
North American Aviation, Inc., 217 Cal. App. 2d 336, 345, 31 Cal. Rptr.
873, 878 (1963) (“ ‘It is the wrong done and the damage suffered pursuant
to . . . the conspiracy itself . . . .
[T]he complaint must state facts which
show that a civil wrong was done’ ”); Chapman v. Pollock, 148 F. Supp.
769, 772 (WD Mo. 1957) (“There can be no recovery for the simple exist-
ence of a civil conspiracy. The action is for damages caused by acts com-
mitted pursuant to a formed conspiracy. . . . Unless something is actually
done by the conspirators pursuant to their combination . . . no civil action
lies against anyone”); Adler v. Fenton, 24 How. 407, 410 (1861) (“[I]t must
be shown that the defendants have done some wrong”); Royster v. Baker,
365 S. W. 2d 496, 499 (Mo. 1963) (“The gist of the action is not the conspir-
acy, but the wrong done by acts in furtherance of the conspiracy”); Halber-