Paul v. Davis
- Decided
- May 19, 1976
- Docket
- 74-891
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 4,836 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that man wrongly identified in police flier as active shoplifter not deprived of liberty or property interest — (untitled) (1997)
- holding that harm to reputation alone does not implicate a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause — Coleman v. Dretke (2004)
- holding that publication of a record of an official act, such as an arrest, does not implicate any fundamental right — John Doe I v. Robert Williams (2013)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Mr. Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari, 421 U. S. 909 (1975), in this case to consider whether respondent’s charge that petitioners’ defamation of him, standing alone and apart from any other governmental action with respect to him, stated a claim for relief under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment. For the reasons hereinafter stated, we conclude that it does not.
Petitioner Paul is the Chief of Police of the Louisville, Ky., Division of Police, while petitioner McDaniel occupies the same position in the Jefferson County, Ky., Division of Police. In late 1972 they agreed to combine their efforts for the purpose of alerting local area merchants to possible shoplifters who might be operating dur [*695] ing the Christmas season. In early December petitioners distributed to approximately 800 merchants in the Louisville metropolitan area a “flyer,” which began as follows:
Statutes cited
Cite this
Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.