Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitdefendantattorneystatutecivil rightspiracy
defendantattorneystatutecivil rightspiracy

Related Cases

Dano v. Royal Globe Ins. Co., 59 N.Y.2d 827, 451 N.E.2d 488, 464 N.Y.S.2d 741
View Case »
Manganella v. Keyes, 613 F.Supp. 795
View Case »
Salmon v. Atkinson, 355 Ark. 325, 137 S.W.3d 383
View Case »
Nemours Foundation v. Gilbane, Aetna, Federal Ins. Co., 632 F.Supp. 418, 54 USLW 2582
View Case »
International Broth. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America v. Hoffa, 242 F.Supp. 246, 59 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2460, 51 Lab.Cas. P 19,750
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Heffernan v. Hunter, 189 F.3d 405

Facts

John J. Heffernan, an SEC investigator, was assigned to investigate insider trading violations related to Robert W. Hunter. Following a personal scandal involving Hunter, his former partner provided information to Heffernan, leading to an intimate relationship between them. Hunter, facing criminal charges, filed a lawsuit against Heffernan, alleging that Heffernan had caused his partner to falsely accuse him of molestation and had shared confidential SEC information to aid her civil suit against him. This lawsuit was accompanied by a media campaign that sought to discredit Heffernan.

John J. Heffernan, an SEC investigator, was assigned to investigate insider trading violations related to Robert W. Hunter. Following a personal scandal involving Hunter, his former partner provided information to Heffernan, leading to an intimate relationship between them.

Issue

Did Heffernan have standing to bring an action under the Civil Rights conspiracy statute, and was there a conspiracy between Hunter and his attorney?

The issue is whether he, as a potential witness, has a right of action under the Civil Rights conspiracy statute.

Rule

The court held that a witness has standing to bring an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2), but a conspiracy cannot exist between an attorney and client when the attorney's actions are within the scope of representation.

The court held that a witness has standing to bring an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2), but a conspiracy cannot exist between an attorney and client when the attorney's actions are within the scope of representation.

Analysis

The court determined that Heffernan, as a potential witness, had standing under the Civil Rights conspiracy statute. However, it found that the actions taken by Hunter and his attorney were part of their attorney-client relationship, which precluded the establishment of a conspiracy. The court emphasized that the attorney's conduct, even if unethical, was still within the scope of representation and did not constitute a conspiracy under the statute.

The court determined that Heffernan, as a potential witness, had standing under the Civil Rights conspiracy statute. However, it found that the actions taken by Hunter and his attorney were part of their attorney-client relationship, which precluded the establishment of a conspiracy.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the dismissal of Heffernan's claims, concluding that he failed to establish a conspiracy under either section 1985(1) or (2).

The court affirmed the dismissal of Heffernan's claims, concluding that he failed to establish a conspiracy under either section 1985(1) or (2).

Who won?

Defendants (Hunter and his attorney) prevailed because the court found that their actions did not constitute a conspiracy under the Civil Rights statutes.

Defendants (Hunter and his attorney) prevailed because the court found that their actions did not constitute a conspiracy under the Civil Rights statutes.

You must be