Brawner v. Irvin
United States Circuit Court for the Northern District of Georgia
169 F. 964 (1909)
- Written by Noah Lewis, JD
Facts
Lula Brawner (plaintiff), a Black woman, lived in Elberton, Georgia, with her husband and children. W. H. Irvin (defendant), a White man, was Elberton’s chief of police. Irvin went to Brawner’s house, called her into her yard, arrested her, and charged her with hitting his relative’s child. Brawner denied the allegation. In view of Brawner’s neighbors, Irvin began to whip her, cutting her skin and causing her pain, suffering, and humiliation. Irvin then put Brawner in jail for two hours before releasing her. No charges were brought against Brawner, nor was she required to appear in court. Irvin was not criminally prosecuted for his actions, and a grand jury took no action against him. Brawner then filed suit against Irvin in federal district court for violations under the Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Brawner argued that Irvin was acting under color of law; that is, he used his state-granted authority of arresting and taking people into custody to carry out his actions against her. Brawner sought $5,000 in punitive damages, i.e., compensation designed to punish the defendant and serve as a deterrent, also known as exemplary damages. Irvin argued there was no jurisdiction and no cause of action.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Newman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 788,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.