Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Davis Vs. Passman

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 05, 1979

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

71 entries 15 linked 56 unlinked
Show
  1. Butz Vs. Economou US Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1978
  2. Buckley Vs. Valeo US Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1976
  3. Weinberger Vs. Wiesenfeld US Supreme Court · Mar 19, 1975
  4. Bolling Vs. Sharpe US Supreme Court · May 17, 1954
  5. Vance Vs. Bradley US Supreme Court · Feb 22, 1979
  6. Califano Vs. Webster US Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1977
  7. United States Vs. Memphis US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1877
  8. Mcculloch Vs. Maryland US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1819
  9. Baker Vs. Carr US Supreme Court · Mar 26, 1962
  10. Bell Vs. Hood US Supreme Court · Apr 01, 1946
  11. Calhoon Vs. Harvey US Supreme Court · Dec 07, 1964
  12. Cort Vs. Ash US Supreme Court · Jun 17, 1975
  13. Craig Vs. Boren US Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1976
  14. Marbury Vs. Madison US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1803
  15. J. I Case Co. Vs. Borak US Supreme Court · Jun 08, 1964
  16. U.S. 228 (1979) U.S. Supreme Court Davis v. Passman
    Search
  17. U.S. 228 (1979) Davis v. Passman
    Search
  18. be implied directly under the Constitution when the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment is violated. Cf. Bivens v. Six
    Search
  19. therefore has a cause of action under the Fifth Amendment. The Court of Appeals erred in using the criteria of Cort v. Ash
    Search
  20. joined, post, p. 442 U. S. 251 . MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court. Bivens v. Six
    Search
  21. F.2d at 801. The court reached this conclusion on the basis of the criteria that had been set out in Cort v. Ash
    Search
  22. and create such a remedy. 571 F.2d at 800. II In Bivens v. Six
    Search
  23. through a private cause of action, and that a damages remedy was an appropriate form of redress. Last Term, Butz v. Economou
    Search
  24. Clause of the Fifth Amendment forbids the Federal Government to deny equal protection of the laws. E.g., Hampton v. Mow
    Search
  25. objectives and must be Page 442 U. S. 235 substantially related to achievement of those objectives.' Craig v. Boren
    Search
  26. a) to consider petitioner's claim. Bell v. Hood
    Search
  27. Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 8(a). See Original Ballet Russe, Ltd. v. Ballet
    Search
  28. Page 442 U. S. 238 Larson v. Domestic
    Search
  29. Cannon v. University
    Search
  30. of Chicago, 441 U. S. 677 , 441 U. S. 688 (1979). Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Barbour
    Search
  31. judicial authority to require SIPC to perform its statutory obligations. On the other hand, Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. Railway
    Search
  32. cause of action. The Court of Appeals reached this conclusion through the application of the criteria set out in Cort v. Ash
    Search
  33. of action, they may nevertheless be enforced through alternative mechanisms, such as criminal prosecutions, see Cort v. Ash
    Search
  34. supra, or other public causes of actions. See Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Barbour
    Search
  35. National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. National
    Search
  36. wrote Mr. Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison
    Search
  37. The plaintiffs in Bolling v. Sharpe
    Search
  38. held that equitable relief should be made available. 349 U. S. 294 (1955). Like the plaintiffs in Bolling v. Sharpe
    Search
  39. See Butz v. Economou
    Search
  40. Gravel v. United
    Search
  41. States, 408 U. S. 606 , 408 U. S. 615 (1972). Cf. Doe v. McMillan
    Search
  42. U. S. 306 , 412 U. S. 320 (1973). As Butz v. Economou
    Search
  43. the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law, and are bound to obey it.' United States v. Lee
    Search
  44. relief to be made available only to those who are protected by the statute is patently inconsistent with Hampton v. Mow
    Search
  45. have been violated. We do not hold that every tort by a federal official may be redressed in damages. See Wheeldin v. Wheeler
    Search
  46. The criteria set out in Cort v. Ash
    Search
  47. is the plaintiff 'one of the class for whose especial benefit the statute was enacted,' Texas & Pacific R. Co. v. Rigsby
    Search
  48. National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. National
    Search
  49. Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Barbour
    Search
  50. See Wheeldin v. Wheeler
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial