Carey v. Piphus
- Decided
- March 21, 1978
- Docket
- 76-1149
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 3,438 timesDisapproved (not yet verified)Possible negative treatment: disapproved (not yet verified) · Taliaferro v. Willett
What later courts said
- holding that nominal damages are appro priate when a plaintiff ’s constitutional rights have been infringed but he cannot show further injury — Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins (2016)
- holding that nominal damages are appropriate when a plaintiff's constitutional rights have been infringed but he cannot show further injury — Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins (2016)
- concluding that plaintiff could be compensated with nominal damages for procedural due process violations even absent proof of actual injury — Al-Amin v. Smith (2008)
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 Powell delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case, brought under 42 U. S. C. § 1983, we consider the elements and prerequisites for recovery of damages by students who were suspended from public elementary and secondary schools without procedural due process. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the students are entitled to recover substantial nonpunitive damages even if their suspensions were justified, and even if they do not prove that any other actual injury was caused by the denial of procedural due process. We disagree, and hold that in the absence of proof of actual injury, the students are entitled to recover only nominal damages.
I
Statutes cited
Cite this
Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247 (1978)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.