to exalt form over substance. The Supreme Court has repeatedly found, however, that when determining whether a private entity is a "state actor,” courts should engage in a factual and pragmatic inquiry as opposed to an overly formalistic mode of analysis. See Lugar, 457 U.S. at 939, 102 S.Ct. 2744; Teny v. Adams, 345 U.S. 461, 73 S.Ct. 809, 97 L.Ed. 1152 (1953) (rejecting formalistic application of the Fifteenth Amendment and holding that Jaybird Political Party was a state actor on the grounds that the Jaybird primary had the practical effect of determining who would win the general election and the party was created for the sole purpose of avoiding the Fifteenth Amendment and discriminating against blacks); Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649, 661, 64 S.Ct. 757, 88 L.Ed. 987 (1944) (<HOLDING>). 6 . There are only minor differences between
holding that a state agency created under state law was a state actor holding that such a physician was a state actor under  1983 holding that amtrak was a state actor holding that texas democratic party was subject to the fourteenth amendment as a state actor and rejecting as a slight  change in form defendants argument that because the democratic party was a private entity it was not a state actor holding that a private physician contracting with a county psychiatric hospital was liable as a state actor but was not entitled to qualified immunity