Also known as: volunteers
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
2 senses
A person who confers a benefit on another without intent to seek compensation or reward. The conferral occurs by free choice rather than under any agreement or expectation of payment, so no restitution claim arises even if the recipient retains the benefit.
A person who confers a benefit on another without intent to seek compensation or reward. The conferral occurs by free choice rather than under any agreement or expectation of payment, so no restitution claim arises even if the recipient retains the benefit.
Violet Vidal received property under a marriage settlement that named her only as a volunteer beneficiary. When creditors of the settlor later sought the assets, the court treated Violet's interest as subordinate because she had given no consideration for the transfer.
An ordinary participant in a political campaign whose relationship to a judge is not so close or central that it automatically requires the judge's recusal from a case involving that participant.
An ordinary participant in a political campaign whose relationship to a judge is not so close or central that it automatically requires the judge's recusal from a case involving that participant.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Judge Beman and his wife were advanced in years. Mrs. Beman was about to die. She had a small estate consisting of a house and lot in Malone and little else. Judge Beman drew his wife’s will according to her instructions. It gave $1,000 to plaintiff, $500 to one sister, plaintiff’s mother, and $100 each to another sister and her son, the use of the house to her husband for life, remainder to the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. She named her husband as residuary legatee and executor. Plaintiff was her niece, thirty-four years old, in ill health, sometimes a member of the Beman household. When the will was read to Mrs. Beman she said that it was not as she wanted it; she wanted to leave the house to plaintiff. She had no other objection to the will, but her strength was waning and although the judge offered to write another will for her, she said she was afraid she would not hold out long enough to enable her to sign it. So the judge said if she would sign the will he would leave plaintiff enough in his will to make up the difference. He avouched the promise by his uplifted hand with all solemnity and his wife then executed the will. When he came to die it was found that his will made no provision for the plaintiff. This action was brought and plaintiff recovered judgment in the trial court on the theory that Beman had obtained property from his wife and induced her to execute the will in the form prepared by him by his promise to give plaintiff $6,000, the value of the house. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment by a return to the general doctrine laid down in Lawrence v. Fox. The Court of Appeals of New York granted review and affirmed the judgment.
View caseVance Vogel organized a group of local volunteers to search a wooded area for a missing child. Police later obtained a confession that led them to the body. Because the volunteers were already systematically covering the same ground, the body would have been found independently of the confession.
On December 24, 1968, ten-year-old Pamela Powers disappeared from a YMCA building in Des Moines, Iowa, where she had accompanied her parents to watch an athletic contest. Williams was seen leaving the YMCA carrying a large bundle wrapped in a blanket. A fourteen-year-old boy who helped open his car door reported seeing two skinny white legs inside it. Williams' car was found the next day 160 miles east in Davenport, Iowa. Items of the child's clothing along with an army blanket were recovered at a rest stop on Interstate 80 near Grinnell between Des Moines and Davenport. A warrant issued for Williams' arrest. On December 26 the Iowa Bureau of Criminal Investigation organized a search with two hundred volunteers divided into teams that began twenty-one miles east of Grinnell and moved westward through Poweshiek County into Jasper County. Searchers checked all roads, ditches, culverts, abandoned farm buildings, and other places where a small child's body could be hidden. The search area was marked off in grids on highway maps. Williams surrendered to police in Davenport and was arraigned. After his attorneys arranged for no questioning during transport, two Des Moines detectives took him into custody for the return drive. During the trip Detective Leaming spoke to Williams about predicted snow and the parents' right to a Christian burial. Williams then directed the officers to the child's shoes, the blanket, and ultimately the body itself. The body lay next to a culvert in a ditch beside a gravel road in Polk County. It was roughly two and one-half miles from where one search team had stopped when the search was suspended at 3 p.m. Williams was indicted for first-degree murder. At his first trial the evidence of the body was admitted over objection. He was convicted. The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed. The United States Supreme Court reversed in Brewer v. Williams on the ground that the statements were obtained in violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. At the second trial in 1977 the prosecution introduced evidence of the condition of the body, articles and photographs of clothing, and autopsy results without offering Williams' statements or showing that he had directed police to the body. The trial court found by a preponderance of the evidence that the body would have been discovered within a short time in essentially the same condition by the continuing search. The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed. On federal habeas corpus the District Court denied relief after an independent review. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseVaughn Valentine volunteered at a women's health center by escorting patients past protesters. An injunction later barred protesters from harassing any volunteer assisting at the clinic. Vaughn's status as a volunteer brought him within the order's protection even though he received no pay.
Respondents operate a medical clinic in Melbourne, Florida, that offers abortions among other services. The clinic is located on Dixie Highway, a major traffic artery in the city. The clinic property occupies less than one acre and is bounded on the north and south by other commercial property, on the west by a two-lane road, and on the east by a parking lot and an intersecting street. In September 1992, a group of antiabortion protesters began picketing the clinic. The protesters, whose number varied from 10 to 40 on any given day, engaged in a variety of activities near the clinic. They sang, chanted, and carried signs and banners. They also distributed literature to, and engaged in conversations with, people approaching the clinic. Although the protesters were generally nonviolent, they occasionally trespassed onto clinic property and blocked access to the clinic. They also picketed the nearby residences of some of the clinic's employees. In response to these activities, the clinic obtained an injunction from the Florida Circuit Court. The initial injunction prohibited trespassing on or entering clinic property, blocking or interfering with access to or egress from the clinic, physically or verbally abusing persons entering or leaving the clinic, making loud or raucous noise within earshot of the clinic during specified hours, physically approaching any person seeking clinic services within 300 feet unless the person indicates a desire to communicate, using any images observable by patients inside the clinic, and picketing or demonstrating within 300 feet of clinic employees' residences. After the initial injunction proved insufficient, protesters continued to impede access to the clinic by congregating on the paved portion of Dixie Way and marching in front of the clinic's driveways. Sidewalk counselors approached vehicles heading toward the clinic. The number of people congregating varied from a handful to 400, and the noise varied from singing and chanting to the use of loudspeakers and bullhorns. The trial court issued a broader amended injunction that established a 36-foot buffer zone around the clinic entrances and driveway, noise restrictions during surgical procedures and recovery periods, a 300-foot no-approach zone around the clinic, a 300-foot buffer zone around employees' residences, and an in concert provision. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the amended injunction. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the conflict between the Florida Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals.
View caseVirgil Volpe, a reporter, asked a prosecutor whether a defendant had any prior convictions. The prosecutor declined to volunteer the information, citing the risk of prejudice before trial. The decision preserved the fairness of the proceedings by avoiding unnecessary disclosure.
On the evening of October 18, 1975, local police found the six members of the Henry Kellie family murdered in their home in Sutherland, Nebraska, a town of about 850 people. Police released the description of a suspect, Erwin Charles Simants, to the reporters who had hastened to the scene of the crime. Simants was arrested and arraigned in Lincoln County Court the following morning. Three days after the crime, the County Attorney and Simants' attorney joined in asking the County Court to enter a restrictive order relating to matters that may or may not be publicly reported. This request responded to the mass coverage by news media and the reasonable likelihood of prejudicial news that would make difficult the impaneling of an impartial jury. The County Court heard oral argument but took no evidence. On October 22 the County Court granted the motion and entered an order. The order prohibited everyone in attendance from releasing for public dissemination any testimony given or evidence adduced. It also required members of the press to observe the Nebraska Bar-Press Guidelines. Simants' preliminary hearing was held the same day, open to the public but subject to the order. The County Court bound the defendant over for trial to the State District Court on charges that included commission of the murders in the course of a sexual assault. Petitioners, several press and broadcast associations, publishers, and individual reporters, moved on October 23 for leave to intervene in the District Court. They asked that the restrictive order be vacated. The District Court conducted a hearing at which the County Judge testified and newspaper articles about the case were admitted in evidence. On October 27 the District Court granted the motion to intervene and entered its own restrictive order. The order applied only until the jury was impaneled. It specifically prohibited reporting of the existence or contents of a confession Simants had made to law enforcement officers, statements Simants had made to other persons, the contents of a note he had written the night of the crime, aspects of the medical testimony at the preliminary hearing concerning the sexual assault, and the identity of the victims of the alleged sexual assault. Four days later petitioners asked the District Court to stay its order. They applied to the Nebraska Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus, a stay, and an expedited appeal. The Nebraska Supreme Court heard oral argument on November 25 and on December 1 issued a per curiam opinion that modified the District Court's order. The modified order prohibited reporting of only three matters: the existence and nature of any confessions or admissions made by the defendant to law enforcement officers, any confessions or admissions made to any third parties except members of the press, and other facts strongly implicative of the accused. The Nebraska Supreme Court remanded the case to the District Judge for reconsideration of whether pretrial hearings should be closed to the press and public. The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari. The parties informed the Court that Simants had been convicted of murder and sentenced to death, with his appeal pending in the Nebraska Supreme Court. The restrictive order expired by its own terms when the jury was impaneled on January 7, 1976. There were no restraints on publication once the jury was selected.
View caseViktor Voronin worked without pay as a volunteer teacher at a Freedom School. When he was denied service at a restaurant because of his students' race, he sued under federal civil rights law. His volunteer status did not prevent him from asserting the claim as a person acting under color of custom.
Sandra Adickes, a white school teacher from New York, was working as a volunteer teacher at a Freedom School for Negro children in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, during the summer of 1964. On August 14, 1964, Adickes went with six of her Negro students to the Hattiesburg Public Library, where the librarian refused to allow the students to use the library and summoned the chief of police, who ordered the group to leave. The group then went to the S. H. Kress & Co. store in Hattiesburg to have lunch. Adickes filed suit against Kress in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After the group sat down at the lunch counter, a policeman entered the store and observed them. A waitress took the orders of the Negro students but refused to serve Adickes on the ground that she was a white person in the company of Negroes. The group left the store without being served. As they reached the sidewalk, the same policeman arrested Adickes on a vagrancy charge. The vagrancy charge against Adickes was subsequently changed, and she was tried and acquitted. Her complaint contained two counts under § 1983. One count alleged that Kress had refused her service pursuant to a custom of the community to segregate the races in public eating places that was enforced by the State. The other count alleged that the refusal of service and the arrest were the product of a conspiracy between Kress employees and the Hattiesburg police. Kress moved for summary judgment on the conspiracy count and submitted depositions from the store manager, the waitress, and the arresting officers, along with affidavits from police officials, all denying any agreement or communication with the police about refusing service or making the arrest. Adickes opposed the motion by pointing to her deposition statement and an unsworn statement from a Kress employee indicating that a policeman had been in the store at the time of the refusal. The District Court granted summary judgment on the conspiracy count, holding that Adickes had failed to allege facts from which a conspiracy might be inferred. After a trial on the custom count, the District Court directed a verdict for Kress because Adickes had not proved other instances of whites being refused service while in the company of Negroes. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court's rulings on both counts. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the case.
View case3 common questions
A volunteer confers the benefit by free choice and without any expectation of payment. Allowing recovery would upset the recipient's reasonable expectation that the benefit was a gift and would undermine the policy against officious intermeddling.
Yes. One who volunteers services without an agreement for reward may nevertheless become a servant of the person accepting the services if the latter exercises control over the manner of performance.
A volunteer beneficiary under a marriage settlement receives the property without having given consideration. Creditors of the settlor may therefore reach the assets because the transfer lacks the protections afforded to purchasers for value.
Supporting sources
Vera Vu served as a volunteer handing out flyers for Judge Harlan's reelection campaign. Years later, Vera appears as counsel in a case assigned to Judge Harlan. Because Vera's role was limited to ordinary volunteer work rather than a central campaign position, the judge need not recuse.
1 common questions
Ordinary campaign volunteers do not trigger automatic disqualification. Only central roles such as campaign manager or treasurer create a relationship close enough that a reasonable person would question the judge's impartiality.
Supporting sources
…a blanket with hair strands similar to hers were found in the car. A search for the child’s body was organized, involving 200 volunteers, and the searchers were instructed to check any abandoned farm buildings or culverts in a specified area. Meanwhile, Williams was arrested in Davenport and was arraigned on the outstanding…