Legal Opinion
Van Sickle v. Holloway
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Decided May 28, 1986No. 85-1612PublishedCited by 162 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
GIBSON, Senior Circuit Judge.
This three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); Tenth Circuit Rule 10(e). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Van Sickle filed this action pro se apparently based on 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 against several state and federal judges, alleging that they violated and conspired to violate his civil rights. The district court dismissed the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) as frivolous and malicious.2 Van Sickle appealed…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Harlow v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of NarcoticsSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. FeldmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Stump v. SparkmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Pierson v. RaySupreme Court of the United States · 1967
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by162 opinions
- Louise Whitney v. State of New Mexico Charles Patrick, Employee of the State of New Mexico John/jane Doe, Unknown Employees of the State of New MexicoCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1997
- Robert David Figueroa v. Audrey P. BlackburnCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2000
- Anant Kumar Tripati v. William C. BeamanCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1989
- Braley v. CampbellCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1987
- Andrews v. HeatonCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2007
157 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.