Victor Frank Szijarto v. Charles F. Legeman

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “an attorney, 19 whether retained or appointed, does not act ‘under color of’ state law.”
• holding that a claim of 10 ineffective assistance of a retained trial attorney was not a cognizable claim under § 1983 because 11 “an attorney, whether retained or appointed, does not act ‘under color of’ state law.”
• holding that a claim of ineffective assistance of a 15 retained trial attorney was not a cognizable claim under § 1983 because “an attorney, whether 16 retained or appointed, does not act ‘under color of’ state law.”
• holding attorney representing criminal defendant, “whether retained or 17 appointed, does not act ‘under color of’ state law” for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983
• holding attorney 25 representing criminal defendant, “whether retained or appointed, does not act ‘under color of’ state law” for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983
• holding attorney representing 23 criminal defendant, “whether retained or appointed, does not act ‘under color of’ state law”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).