|
4569 REVIEW DENIED Defendant's evidence of a legitimate reason for eliminating legal services provided by plaintiff attorneys was sufficient to sustain a jury's conclusion that defendant did not violate plaintiffs' constitutional rights, in spite of other evidence to the contrary; a public official who allows a claim for alleged violation of civil rights to be litigated rather than oppose the decision that resulted in it does not thereby ratify or participate in such a violation and cannot be liable for violation of the federal Civil Rights Act.CitationJONES & MATSON v HALL (Reduced Legal Services) 155 CA4 1596 [See: CCP 284; 42 USC 1983; Johnson v Duffy 588 F2 740; Tognazzini v San Luis Coastal USD 86 CA4 1053, T/AT 3/01]
|
|
