context: Other circuits have expressed concern that an attenuated connection between a private defendant and the state risks federalizing large areas of state tort law. The Third Circuit warned that not requiring state action would create a federal cause of action "whenever a white man strikes a black in a barroom brawl."
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.parenthetical: pre-Phillip case following Mahone because "[extending the 'equal benefit' clause to private conduct would have the effect of federalizing all racially-motivated state-law torts that im plicate 'the security of persons and property' "
citation_a.sentence: See also Chapman, 319 F.3d at 842 (Suh-rheinrich, J., dissenting) (“Under the majority’s interpretation, the equal benefit clause conceivably can be applied to every garden-variety state tort law claim where the parties are of different races.”); Spencer v. Casavilla, 839 F.Supp. 1014, 1019 (S.D.N.Y.1993) (pre-Phillip case following Mahone because “[extending the ‘equal benefit’ clause to private conduct would have the effect of federalizing all racially-motivated state-law torts that im plicate ‘the security of persons and property’ ”), affirmed in part and appeal dismissed in part, 44 F.3d 74 (2d Cir.1994).
citation_b.signal: no signal
citation_b.identifier: 564 F.2d 1018, 1029
citation_b.parenthetical: in dicta suggesting that the equal benefit clause requires state action
citation_b.sentence: Mahone v. Waddle, 564 F.2d 1018, 1029 (3rd Cir.1977) (in dicta suggesting that the equal benefit clause requires state action).