Vulcan Materials Co. v. State Corporation Commission

How courts have described this case

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

• affirming dismissal of Section 1983 action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction where plaintiff “did not allege that [the defendant] was a state actor”
• affirming (1) district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and (2) denial of plaintiff’s motion to reconsider
• affirming Apple dismissal of § 1983 claim against private actor not alleged to be a state actor because “[Plaintiff’s] allegations were not sufficient to invoke jurisdiction”
• affirming the dismissal of a § 1983 claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Apple where the plaintiff did not allege that the defendant was a state actor

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).