Citation network
Robertson Vs. Wegmann
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 31, 1978
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. 584 (1978) U.S. Supreme Court Robertson v. WegmannSearch
-
U.S. 584 (1978) Robertson v. WegmannSearch
-
On Shaw's application, the District Court enjoined prosecution of the perjury action, Shaw v. GarrisonSearch
-
Moor v. CountySearch
-
Page 436 U. S. 589 Moor v. CountySearch
-
of Alameda, supra at 411 U. S. 703 , quoting Sullivan v. LittleSearch
-
Hunting Park, Inc., 396 U. S. 229 , 396 U. S. 240 (1969). As we noted in Moor v. CountySearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Michigan Central R. Co. v. VreelandSearch
-
Sullivan v. LittleSearch
-
Moor v. CountySearch
-
Johnson v. RailwaySearch
-
U. S. 88 , 403 U. S. 97 (1971), quoting United States v. PriceSearch
-
of federal rights and prevention of abuses of power by those acting under color of state law. See, e.g., Carey v. PiphusSearch
-
J. Wilton Jones Co. v. LibertySearch
-
F.Supp. at 1363, or if it significantly restricted the types of actions that survive. Cf. Carey v. PiphusSearch
-
Brazier v. CherrySearch
-
The Court of Appeals held that this Court's decision in Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
s passage in 1866, See Swift v. TysonSearch
-
Moor v. CountySearch
-
The latter interpretation has received some judicial and scholarly support. See, e.g., Basista v. WeirSearch
-
and Federal Common Law, 36 La.L.Rev. 681, 68685 (1976). See also Carey v. PiphusSearch
-
ed.1971), and a large number of States also provide for abatement of malicious prosecution actions, see, e.g., Dean v. ShirerSearch
-
Hall v. WootenSearch
-
action when such is allowed by state law, see Moor v. CountySearch
-
I see no need to resort to the myriad of state rules governing the survival of state actions. First. In Sullivan v. LittleSearch
-
the problems of immunity and damages under the Civil Rights Acts. Only this Term, in Page 436 U. S. 597 Carey v. PiphusSearch
-
the Court has consistently relied on federal common law rules. As Carey v. PiphusSearch
-
recognizes, id. at 435 U. S. 258 n. 13, in attributing immunity to prosecutors, Imbler v. PachtmanSearch
-
to judges, Pierson v. RaySearch
-
a), Textile Workers v. LincolnSearch
-
transactions in commercial paper issued by the United States where the United States is a party, Clearfield Trust Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
to which the United States was a party and that bore heavily upon a federal wildlife regulatory program, United States v. LittleSearch
-
Lake Misere Land Co., 412 U. S. 580 (1973). See also Auto Workers v. HoosierSearch
-
where that law fails to give adequate expression to important federal concerns. See Sullivan v. LittleSearch
-
when there was malicious intention to deprive a person of his constitutional rights, is particularly strong, as Carey v. PiphusSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Robertson v. WegmannSearch
-
Cf. Carey v. PiphusSearch
-
Brazier v. CherrySearch
-
Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
See Swift v. TysonSearch
-
Basista v. WeirSearch
-
Dean v. ShirerSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial