Assessment of costs.U.S. Appeals Court TELEPHONE Arsberry v. Illinois 244 F.3d 558 (7th Cir. 2001). Prison and jail inmates, inmates' families, and a public-interest law firm brought an action against a state, state agencies and officials, and telephone companies, challenging the practice by which prisons and jails each granted one telephone company the exclusive right to provide inmate INMATE. One who dwells in a part of another's house, the latter dwelling, at the same time, in the said house. Kitch. 45, b; Com. Dig. Justices of the Peace, B 85; 1 B. & Cr. 578; 8 E. C. L. R. 153; 2 Dowl. & Ry. 743; 8 B. & Cr. 71; 15 E. C. L. R. 154; 2 Man. & Ry. 227; 9 B. & Cr. telephone service in exchange for a portion of the revenues generated. The suit was brought under [ss] 1983, the Sherman Act, and state law. The federal district court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The appeals court modified and affirmed the district court decision. According to according to prep. 1. As stated or indicated by; on the authority of: according to historians. 2. In keeping with: according to instructions. 3. the appeals court, the exorbitant telephone rates resulting from the challenged practice did not violate the First Amendment and the practice did not result in unconstitutional unconstitutional adj. referring to a statute, governmental conduct, court decision or private contract (such as a covenant which purports to limit transfer of real property only to Caucasians) which violate one or more provisions of the U. S. Constitution. takings. The court also found that the practice did not violate anti-trust laws, and that the state officials responsible for the practice were entitled en·ti·tle tr.v. en·ti·tled, en·ti·tling, en·ti·tles 1. To give a name or title to. 2. To furnish with a right or claim to something: to qualified immunity Qualified immunity is a doctrine in United States law providing immunity from suit to government officials performing discretionary functions when their action did not violate clearly established law. Qualified immunity was created by the U.S. from damages asserted under [ss] 198 3, given the "novelty" of the action. (Illinois) |
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion