Citation network
Pierson Vs. Ray
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 11, 1967
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 547 (1967) U.S. Supreme Court Pierson v. RaySearch
-
U.S. 547 (1967) Pierson v. RaySearch
-
of the Mississippi Code, which this Court, in 1965, held unconstitutional in Thomas v. MississippiSearch
-
valid, since they were not required to predict what laws are constitutional, but that, by virtue of Monroe v. PapeSearch
-
Cf. Tenney v. BrandhoveSearch
-
Pp. 386 U. S. 555 -557. 3. Though the officers were not required to predict this Court's ruling in Thomas v. MississippiSearch
-
of the Mississippi Code was held unconstitutional as applied to similar facts in Thomas v. MississippiSearch
-
arrest under a state statute not yet held invalid. The court believed that this stern result was required by Monroe v. PapeSearch
-
acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction, as this Court recognized when it adopted the doctrine in Bradley v. FisherSearch
-
Scott v. StansfieldSearch
-
L.R. 3 Ex. 220, 223 (1868), quoted in Bradley v. FisherSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
indication that Congress meant to abolish wholesale all common law immunities. Accordingly, this Court held in Tenney v. BrandhoveSearch
-
Ward v. FidelitySearch
-
except that it felt compelled to hold otherwise by our decision in Monroe v. PapeSearch
-
U.S. Page 386 U. S. 556 167 (1961). Monroe v. PapeSearch
-
of the common law count on the theory that the police officers were not required to predict our decision in Thomas v. MississippiSearch
-
Together with No. 94, Ray et al. v. PiersonSearch
-
because they feared that onlookers might breach the peace. We reversed without argument or opinion, citing Boynton v. VirginiaSearch
-
Since our decision in Tenney v. BrandhoveSearch
-
See Bauers v. HeiselSearch
-
Miller v. StinnettSearch
-
See Golden v. ThompsonSearch
-
every person, not every person except judges. Despite the plain import of those words, the Court decided in Tenney v. BrandhoveSearch
-
Gregoire v. BiddleSearch
-
between the Page 386 U. S. 565 branches of the Federal Government and those of the States. See Baker v. CarrSearch
-
terms of the power of Congress, I can see no difference between imposing liability on a state police officer ( Monroe v. PapeSearch
-
Dawkins v. LordSearch
-
The plight of the oppressed is indeed serious. Under City of Greenwood v. PeacockSearch
-
The opinion in Ex parte Virginia, supra, did not mention Bradley v. FisherSearch
-
Because the judges were the personal delegates of the King, they should be answerable to him alone. Randall v. BrighamSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Pierson v. RaySearch
-
Thomas v. MississippiSearch
-
of Monroe v. PapeSearch
-
Boynton v. VirginiaSearch
-
of the States. See Baker v. CarrSearch
-
Under City of Greenwood v. PeacockSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial