Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Carlson Vs. Green

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Apr 22, 1980

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

67 entries 13 linked 54 unlinked
Show
  1. Davis Vs. Passman US Supreme Court · Jun 05, 1979
  2. imbler Vs. Pachtman US Supreme Court · Nov 03, 1975
  3. Robertson Vs. Wegmann US Supreme Court · May 31, 1978
  4. Carey Vs. Piphus US Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1978
  5. Mitchum Vs. Foster US Supreme Court · Jun 19, 1972
  6. Monroe Vs. Pape US Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1961
  7. Scheuer Vs. Rhodes US Supreme Court · Apr 17, 1974
  8. Kovacs Vs. Cooper US Supreme Court · Jan 31, 1949
  9. Hudgens Vs. Nlrb US Supreme Court · Mar 03, 1976
  10. Sheldon Vs. Sill US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1850
  11. Estelle Vs. Gamble US Supreme Court · Nov 30, 1976
  12. Butz Vs. Economou US Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1978
  13. Bell Vs. Hood US Supreme Court · Apr 01, 1946
  14. U.S. 14 (1980) U.S. Supreme Court Carlson v. Green
    Search
  15. U.S. 14 (1980) Carlson v. Green
    Search
  16. s proscription against cruel and unusual punishment, thus giving rise to a cause of action for damages under Bivens v. Six
    Search
  17. to redress the constitutional deprivation here alleged and to protect against repetition of such conduct. Robertson v. Wegmann
    Search
  18. I The District Court held that, under Estelle v. Gamble
    Search
  19. giving rise to a cause of action for damages under Bivens v. Six
    Search
  20. in our constitutional scheme as to suggest that judicially created remedies against them might be inappropriate. Davis v. Passman
    Search
  21. s suit might inhibit their efforts to perform their official duties, the qualified immunity accorded them under Butz v. Economou
    Search
  22. U. S. 478 (1978), provides adequate protection. See Davis v. Passman
    Search
  23. FTCA action. First, the Bivens remedy, in addition to compensating victims, serves a deterrent purpose. See Butz v. Economou
    Search
  24. action, Carey v. Piphus
    Search
  25. and Butz v. Economou
    Search
  26. and therefore the question whether respondent's action survived Jones' death is a question of federal law. See Burks v. Lasker
    Search
  27. of the goals of Bivens actions. Auto Workers v. Hoosier
    Search
  28. Court. Though we do not normally decide issues not presented below, we are not precluded from doing so. E.g., Youakim v. Miller
    Search
  29. issue, and is properly raised in another petition for certiorari being held pending disposition of this case. See Loe v. Armistead
    Search
  30. F.2d 1291 (CA4 1978), cert. pending sub nom. Moffitt v. Loe
    Search
  31. serves similar purposes. See, e.g., Robertson v. Wegmann
    Search
  32. in good faith is the fear that exposure to personal liability would otherwise deter them from acting at all. See Butz v. Economou
    Search
  33. official could know at the time he decided to act whether his intended victim's claim would survive. Cf. Auto Workers v. Hoosier
    Search
  34. I We are concerned here with inferring a right of action for damages directly from the Constitution. In Davis v. Passman
    Search
  35. alternative remedies. Bivens v. Six
    Search
  36. Davis v. Passman
    Search
  37. Page 446 U. S. 28 Bivens v. Six
    Search
  38. denigrates the doctrine of separation of powers and hardly comports with a rational system of justice. Cf. Cannon v. University
    Search
  39. federal officers under Bivens . Ibid. I see no basis for this view. In Page 446 U. S. 30 Butz v. Economou
    Search
  40. courts enjoy the same degree of freedom to infer causes of action from statutes as from the Constitution. See Davis v. Passman
    Search
  41. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER, dissenting. Although I would be prepared to join an opinion giving effect to Bivens v. Six
    Search
  42. has already fashioned an equally effective remedy. Cf. Turpin v. Mailet
    Search
  43. its holding on survivorship, ante at 446 U. S. 23 , and n. 11, suggests that the plaintiff in Robertson v. Wegmann
    Search
  44. decision by filing a separate Bivens -type claim. And the Court's test throws into doubt the decision in Brown v. GSA
    Search
  45. Page 446 U. S. 32 provisions that, in my view, still further highlights the wrong turn this Court took in Bivens v. Six
    Search
  46. U. S. 507 (1976), overruling Food Employees v. Logan
    Search
  47. falling within the legislative sphere of authority. Ibid. I Prior to Bivens, this Court, in Bell v. Hood
    Search
  48. party whose constitutional rights had been infringed by a federal officer to recover damages from that officer. Davis v. Passman
    Search
  49. See Chapman v. Houston
    Search
  50. McCardle, Page 446 U. S. 37 supra at 74 U. S. 514 . As stated by Mr. Justice Chase in Turner v. Bank
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial