× Didn't find what you were looking for? Ask a question
Top Posters
Since Sunday
L
3
d
3
y
3
a
3
n
3
d
3
e
3
d
3
c
3
p
3
M
3
a
3
Home Q & A Board Humanities Legal Studies
New Topic  
may129 may129
wrote...
Posts: 624
Rep: 0 0
6 years ago
What is the flaw in the Court of Appeals reasoning that Section 1985(2) did not provide a remedy for Haddle?
Read 27 times
1 Reply

Related Topics

Replies
wrote...
#1
6 years ago
Because employment at will is not constitutionally protected property for the purpose of the Due Process Clause does not mean that Mr. Haddle was not injured in his property, under Section 1985(2), when the defendants conspired to have him fired in retaliation for his grand jury cooperation. The terms injured in his person or property in Section 1985(2) refers to existing principles of tort law that provide a remedy for interference with at-will (contractual) employment relationships.
New Topic      
Quick Reply
Explore
Post your homework questions and get free online help from our incredible volunteers
  949 People Browsing
Start New Topic Take the Tour CoursesNew Study Tools Topics Trending Browse by Textbook
Live Chat
Related Images
  
 302
  
 102
  
 68
Your Opinion
Do you believe in global warming?
Votes: 423
Previous poll results: How often do you eat-out per week?