Lugar prong 1: deprivation caused by exercise of a right, privilege, or rule of conduct created by the State

AND · 42usc1983:color-of-law.state-created-right

First prong of Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co. (457 U.S. 922, 937 (1982)): the deprivation must be caused by the exercise of some right or privilege created by the State or by a rule of conduct imposed by the State or by a person for whom the State is responsible.

Exact element source

under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage

Source: docroot/ir/usc/title42.jsonl#title42_sec1983; Unicode character offsets [64:131] (end exclusive); SHA-256 88fe01322b9d94860a669ec452f558146e2745845070bc43583671ce12acb2bb.

Routes and case patterns

Curated routes and observed case patterns
Route	Definition	Merits instance blocks	Distinct merits cases	Examples (up to 3 cases per count group)
_whole accepted; provisional (1 case)	The element is decided as a whole: the reasoning turns on no narrower doctrinal sub-question that distinguishes it from any other application of this element.	1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0	1	Thompson v. Community Action of Greater Wilmington, Inc. — 567 F. Supp. 1159 (1983) · United States District Court for the District of Delaware · 1983 — not · no-evidence (42usc1983: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted Pattern: no-nexus/personnel-decision-not-governed-by-state-rule

How courts decided this element

Annotation blocks, including explicitly excluded context
Case	Element	Holding and scope	Pattern	Exact source quotations
Thompson v. Community Action of Greater Wilmington, Inc. — 567 F. Supp. 1159 (1983) · United States District Court for the District of Delaware · 1983 — not · no-evidence (42usc1983: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)	Lugar prong 1: deprivation caused by exercise of a right, privilege, or rule of conduct created by the State	not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence; party: CAGW and individual defendants; theory: Lugar prong: deprivation caused by exercise of a state-created right or rule; subject: party=CAGW and individual defendants; theory=Lugar prong: deprivation caused by exercise of a state-created right or rule Dispositive failure: state involvement in the entity's creation, funding and board does not reach its discretionary hiring/firing; participation of public-official board members in the vote is not enough. Burton symbiosis test held displaced by Rendell-Baker/Blum.	no-nexus/personnel-decision-not-governed-by-state-rule	Allegedly, plaintiff was fired by the Board of Directors at a meeting on January 4, 1982 in retaliation for his actions. Source: `docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_567.jsonl#/f-supp/567/1159-01`; Unicode character offsets [1459:1579] (end exclusive); SHA-256 `17afc927bb04fdade70d9f70b64a9bd28fc07264d61e2116bf4fdfdf73290a97`. Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged) The absence of personnel regulations regarding hiring, firing, discipline, and duties applicable to CAGW are particularly telling given the involvement of the state in other areas of CAGW's activities. Source: `docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_567.jsonl#/f-supp/567/1159-01`; Unicode character offsets [23924:24125] (end exclusive); SHA-256 `17afc927bb04fdade70d9f70b64a9bd28fc07264d61e2116bf4fdfdf73290a97`. Evidence kind: fact; polarity: cuts-against; absent flag: 1; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged) While representatives of the public serve on the Board for purposes of promoting governmental objectives, these Board members do not advocate or represent governmental personnel policies since no such policy is applicable to CAGW. Source: `docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_567.jsonl#/f-supp/567/1159-01`; Unicode character offsets [24311:24541] (end exclusive); SHA-256 `17afc927bb04fdade70d9f70b64a9bd28fc07264d61e2116bf4fdfdf73290a97`. Evidence kind: fact; polarity: cuts-against; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged) Also to be satisfied is the second aspect of the Lugar test: whether the alleged deprivation of rights resulted from the exercise of a right, privilege, or rule of conduct having its source in state authority. Source: `docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_567.jsonl#/f-supp/567/1159-01`; Unicode character offsets [22675:22884] (end exclusive); SHA-256 `17afc927bb04fdade70d9f70b64a9bd28fc07264d61e2116bf4fdfdf73290a97`. Evidence kind: rule; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged) While CAGW is a state actor, not all actions by such actors constitute state action. Source: `docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_567.jsonl#/f-supp/567/1159-01`; Unicode character offsets [23493:23577] (end exclusive); SHA-256 `17afc927bb04fdade70d9f70b64a9bd28fc07264d61e2116bf4fdfdf73290a97`. Evidence kind: rule; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged) Confining plaintiff to his articulated theory, there has been no showing that a state created right or procedure was involved with personnel decisions of any type. Source: `docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_567.jsonl#/f-supp/567/1159-01`; Unicode character offsets [23760:23923] (end exclusive); SHA-256 `17afc927bb04fdade70d9f70b64a9bd28fc07264d61e2116bf4fdfdf73290a97`. Evidence kind: held; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged) In light of these findings, the Court concludes that no state action was involved in the decision to terminate Thompson’s employment. Source: `docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_567.jsonl#/f-supp/567/1159-01`; Unicode character offsets [24622:24755] (end exclusive); SHA-256 `17afc927bb04fdade70d9f70b64a9bd28fc07264d61e2116bf4fdfdf73290a97`. Evidence kind: held; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

Court interpretations

interpretation

Also to be satisfied is the second aspect of the Lugar test: whether the alleged deprivation of rights resulted from the exercise of a right, privilege, or rule of conduct having its source in state authority.

Thompson v. Community Action of Greater Wilmington, Inc. — 567 F. Supp. 1159 (1983) · United States District Court for the District of Delaware · 1983 (42usc1983: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)

Also to be satisfied is the second aspect of the Lugar test: whether the alleged deprivation of rights resulted from the exercise of a right, privilege, or rule of conduct having its source in state authority.

Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_567.jsonl#/f-supp/567/1159-01; Unicode character offsets [22675:22884] (end exclusive); SHA-256 17afc927bb04fdade70d9f70b64a9bd28fc07264d61e2116bf4fdfdf73290a97.

interpretation

While CAGW is a state actor, not all actions by such actors constitute state action.

While CAGW is a state actor, not all actions by such actors constitute state action.

Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_567.jsonl#/f-supp/567/1159-01; Unicode character offsets [23493:23577] (end exclusive); SHA-256 17afc927bb04fdade70d9f70b64a9bd28fc07264d61e2116bf4fdfdf73290a97.