U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1981

Jonez P. Suthoff v. Yazoo County Industrial Development Corporation

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided April 15, 1981 · Ingraham, Gee, Tate

642 F.2d 822; 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 14283 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Pyles & Tucker, Dixon L. Pyles, Jackson, Miss., for plaintiffs-appellants., Campbell & Smith, Watkins & Eager, W. F. Goodman, Jr., Jackson, Miss., for Yazoo City, Miss., and Yazoo Public Serv., Henry, Barbour & Decell, Haley Reeves Barbour, Yazoo City, Miss., for Barbour and Neely., Vardaman S. Dunn, Jackson, Miss., for Yazoo County Ind. Dev., Yazoo County and Yazoo Port Comm., On Petition For Rehearing

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision.

Betty J. Archie, as Special Administrator of the Estate of Rena M. Delacy, Deceased v. City of Racine, Ronald W. Chiapete, and George W. Giese (7th Cir. 1987)
Pastan v. City of Melrose (District Court, D. Massachusetts 1985)
Jonez P. Suthoff v. Yazoo County Industrial Development Corporation (5th Cir. 1983)
Stone Mountain Game Ranch, Inc. v. Hunt (United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia 1983)
Siler v. Heckler (United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia 1983)
Jessie E. Wright v. El Paso County Jail, Sheriff (5th Cir. 1981)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

On petition for rehearing, the defendants-appellees suggest that the panel erred in assuming that Yazoo County did not have the power to expropriate, since Yazoo County has the power of expropriation for port commission purposes. See Miss.Code § 59-9-19.

Accepting the validity of the petitioner’s assertion solely for the purpose of determining the jurisdictional issue presented on appeal, we conclude that the gravamen of our original holding need not be altered:

The allegations of the complaint — (a) that public and private persons conspired to misuse a municipality’s expropriation powers, (b) through the municipality’s institution of eminent domain proceedings with no intent to condemn, and (c) but solely in order to coerce the private landowners to sell their property at a price far below value to co-conspirator entities not a party to the condemnation proceedings — are sufficient to state a claim of § 1983 federal jurisdiction for deprivation under color of state law of individual federal constitutional rights.

The petitioners again urge the panel to follow the opinions of two other circuits, Beistline v. City of San Diego, 256 F.2d 421 (9th Cir. 1958), cert. denied 358 U.S. 865, 79 S.Ct. 96, 3 L.Ed.2d 98 (1958), and Warring- *823 ton Sewer Company v. Tracey, 463 F.2d 771 (3d Cir. 1972). However, as we noted in the original panel opinion, both of those opinions are distinguishable from the situation presented on the instant appeal: in neither Beistline nor Warrington did the property owner allege that the defendant expropriating body misused its coercive powers by instituting condemnation proceedings in order to force the price down for the benefit of non-parties, without the condemnor having any intention actually to expropriate the land for public use.

The petition for rehearing is DENIED.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.