TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

John Steward v. David J. Meeker

John STEWARD, Appellant, v. David J. MEEKER

Steward v. Meeker, 459 F.2d 669 (3d Cir. 1972)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
May 2, 1972
Docket
No. 71-1660
Judges
Adams, Gibbons, Rosenn
Citations
459 F.2d 6691972 U.S. App. LEXIS 9789

Opinion — Per Curiam

OPINION OF THE COURT PER CURIAM:

In this action brought under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 , 1985, the plaintiff, John Steward, sues David Meeker, the attorney who represented him in 1969 when Mr. Steward was charged with, and pleaded guilty to, several violations of New Jersey law. The district court granted Mr. Meeker’s motion for summary judgment, and Mr. Steward has appealed.

Summary judgment was properly granted because the allegations of plaintiff’s complaint, if true, could not meet the jurisdictional requirements of either section 1983 or section 1985.

Section 1983 creates a cause of action against “Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory . . .” deprives another of his civil rights. Although an attorney is an officer of the court, as privately retained counsel, Mr. Meeker owed an absolute duty of loyalty to his client, *670 N.J.S.A. 2A.-158A-11. Consequently, Mr. Meeker was acting as a private person in his representation of Mr. Steward, and was not acting under color of law within the meaning of section 1983. Thomas v. Howard, 455 F.2d 228 (3d Cir. 1972).

Section 1985 deals solely with conspiracies to interfere with civil rights, and specifically refers to the situation where “two or more persons . . conspire.” Mr. Steward alleges wrongdoing on the part of Mr. Meeker alone.

Because the allegations of the complaint failed to meet the requirements of either section of the Civil Rights Act under which the suit was filed, the judgment of the district court granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment will be affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 9 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 39 cases

View all citing references →
1972: 11974: 31975: 11978: 21979: 11980: 11981: 21982: 21984: 11985: 12013: 12014: 12017: 22019: 12020: 22021: 72022: 12023: 42024: 12025: 12026: 319722026peak 2021 · 7

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Mikhail v. Kahn991 F. Supp. 2d 596 (E.D. Pa. 2014)
  2. Joseph Carl Brown, Jr. v. Richard P. Joseph, Esquire463 F.2d 1046 (3d Cir. 1972)
  3. Black v. Bayer672 F.2d 309 (3d Cir. 1982)
  4. Voytko v. Ramada Inn of Atlantic City445 F. Supp. 315 (D.N.J. 1978)
  5. Commonwealth v. Carsia491 A.2d 237 (Pa. 1985)
  6. William Himchak, III v. Daniel Dye684 F. App'x 249 (3d Cir. 2017)

Most recent

  1. Edgar Acuna-Viales v. Timothy PasqualeNo. 3:24-cv-01048 (D.N.J. May 21, 2026)
  2. Emperor Joey Builder v. Commonwealth of PennsylvaniaNo. 3:25-cv-02389 (M.D. Penn. Apr. 22, 2026)
  3. Nathaniel James Phillips, Sr. v. Commonwealth of PennsylvaniaNo. 3:26-cv-00256 (M.D. Penn. Apr. 22, 2026)
  4. Smith v. LeonardNo. 1:25-cv-00073 (M.D. Penn. July 21, 2025)
  5. Medley v. FigliolaNo. 1:23-cv-01215 (D. Del. June 11, 2024)
  6. Draucker v. Commonwealth Of PennsylvaniaNo. 1:23-cv-01022 (M.D. Penn. June 22, 2023)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Thomas v. Howard, 455 F.2d 228 (3d Cir. 1972) 40

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list