Citation network
Carey Vs. Piphus
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 21, 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
-
U.S. 247 (1978) U.S. Supreme Court Carey v. PiphusSearch
-
U.S. 247 (1978) Carey v. PiphusSearch
-
It also held that petitioners were not entitled to qualified immunity from damages under the second branch of Wood v. StricklandSearch
-
procedural due process. Id. at 31. Relying on its earlier Page 435 U. S. 253 decision in Hostrop v. BoardSearch
-
elsewhere detailed, e.g., Monroe v. PapeSearch
-
to them by the Constitution. Imbler v. PachtmanSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Codd v. VelgerSearch
-
Adickes v. S.HSearch
-
Bivens v. SixSearch
-
more formidable than that inherent in the award of Page 435 U. S. 257 compensatory damages. See Imbler v. PachtmanSearch
-
action. See Adickes v. S.HSearch
-
constitutional right may not also be protected by an analogous branch of the common law of torts. See Monroe v. PapeSearch
-
Bivens v. SixSearch
-
rights went uncompensated simply because the common law does not recognize an analogous cause of action. Cf. Jones v. HildebrantSearch
-
Sullivan v. LittleSearch
-
or liberty, or life. Fuentes v. ShevinSearch
-
by enabling persons to contest the basis upon which a State proposes to deprive them of protected interests. Fuentes v. ShevinSearch
-
Mt. Healthy City Board of Ed. v. DoyleSearch
-
Arlington Heights v. MetropolitanSearch
-
the suspensions would constitute a windfall, rather than compensation, to respondents. 545 F.2d at 32, citing Hostrop v. BoardSearch
-
by the government. Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrathSearch
-
Gertz v. RobertSearch
-
Coe v. ArmourSearch
-
assertions, and because of the importance to organized society that procedural due process be observed, see Boddie v. ConnecticutSearch
-
Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrathSearch
-
rules allegedly violated here. Id. at A9-A10. Rule 6-9 was amended following this Court's decision in Goss v. LopezSearch
-
The District Court read Goss v. LopezSearch
-
Although respondents' suspensions occurred before Goss v. LopezSearch
-
that petitioners should have been placed on notice that the suspensions violated procedural due process by Linwood v. BoardSearch
-
The District Court expressly held that petitioners did not lose their immunity under the first branch of Wood v. StricklandSearch
-
Tyrrell v. SpeakerSearch
-
Larkins v. OswaldSearch
-
Magnett v. PelletierSearch
-
Stolberg v. MembersSearch
-
Donovan v. ReinboldSearch
-
with the specific purpose of deterring or punishing violations of constitutional rights. See, e.g., Silver v. CormierSearch
-
Stengel v. BelcherSearch
-
Spence v. StarasSearch
-
Caperci v. HuntoonSearch
-
Mansell v. SaundersSearch
-
Basista v. WeirSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial