Engblom v. Carey
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
677 F.2d 957 (1982)
- Written by Miller Jozwiak, JD
Facts
Several correctional officers (officers) (plaintiffs) worked at a correctional facility in New York. The officers resided in apartment units located on the facility grounds. Living in the on-site units was optional, but the units were the officers’ primary residence. The officers were subject to two agreements that restricted their activities in the housing. The officers paid rent via paycheck deductions that could not be deducted from the officers’ income taxes. Many aspects of the arrangement reflected an ordinary landlord-tenant relationship. While the officers were living on the grounds, a law-enforcement union called a strike. The officers were denied access to their units, and state officials (defendants) called in the National Guard and allowed the National Guard to occupy the on-site apartment units. The officers sued the state officials for, as relevant here, violating their rights under the Third Amendment, which prohibited the peacetime quartering of soldiers. The state officials moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted on the grounds that the officers did not have sufficient possessory interests in the units. The officers appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Mansfield, J.)
Concurrence/Dissent (Kaufman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
