Parratt v. Taylor
- Decided
- May 18, 1981
- Docket
- 79-1734
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 6,693 timesOverruled in part (verified)Overruled in part by Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986) (verified: Constitution Annotated, Library of Congress) · Daniels v. Williams
What later courts said
- holding that due process was not violated when government official negligently deprived individual of property, provided meaningful post-deprivation remedy was available — Zephyr Aviation, L.L.C., Zephyr Aviation, L.L.C. v. Robert Alan Dailey, Also Known as Bob Dailey Kenneth Wayne Clary, Also Known as Ken Clary (2001)
- holding that an inmate had a constitutionally protected property right in hobby kits he ordered while in prison — (untitled) (2003)
- holding that availability of state tort remedy satisfied due process requirement for prisoner deprived of property — Moreau v. Town of Turner (1995)
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
[*529] Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court.
The respondent is an inmate at the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex who ordered by mail certain hobby materials valued at $23.50. The hobby materials were lost and respondent brought suit under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 to recover their value. At first blush one might well inquire why respondent brought an action in federal court to recover damages of such a small amount for negligent loss of property, but because 28 U. S. C. § 1343, the predicate for the jurisdiction of the United States District Court, contains no minimum dollar limitation, he was authorized by Congress to bring his action under that section if he met its requirements and if he stated a claim for relief under 42 U. S. C. § 1983. Respondent claimed that his property was negligently lost by prison officials in violation of his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. More specifically, he claimed that he had been deprived of property without due process of law.[1]
The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska entered summary judgment for respondent, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit af [*530] firmed in a per curiam order. 620 F. 2d 307 (1980). We granted certiorari. 449 U. S. 917 (1980).
Statutes cited
Cite this
Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (1981)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.