Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorColeman, Todd C.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2013-02-15T16:25:56Z
dc.date.available2013-02-15T16:25:56Z
dc.date.issued1994en_US
dc.identifier.citation27 Creighton L. Rev. 525 (1993-1994)en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10504/40042
dc.description.abstractINTRODUCTION|After the Civil War, Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1871 ("Act" or "section 1985(3)") as a remedy to the growing number of Ku Klux Klan riots in the South. The Act prohibited state officials from violating the constitutional rights of citizens and also prohibited acts of mob violence. After the Reconstruction Era, the Act fell into disuse and was not revitalized until the civil unrest of the 1960s. Now codified at section 1985(3), the Act contains two clauses, the "deprivation" clause and the "hindrance" clause. The deprivation clause protects against conspiracies seeking to deprive individuals of their equal rights. The hindrance clause protects against conspiracies seeking to hinder local police in the equal protection of an individual's rights. However, from its inception the courts have disagreed on the elements of a cause of action under section 1985(3)...en_US
dc.publisherCreighton University School of Lawen_US
dc.titleHindering the Applicability of 42 U.S.C. 1985(3) to Abortion Protests: Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinicen_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.rights.holderCreighton Universityen_US
dc.description.volume27en_US
dc.publisher.locationOmaha, Nebraskaen_US
dc.title.workCreighton Law Reviewen_US
dc.description.note1993-1994en_US
dc.description.pages525en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record