Citation network
United States Vs. Gillock
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 19, 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
-
U.S. 360 (1980) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. GillockSearch
-
U.S. 360 (1980) United States v. GillockSearch
-
Court's decisions on immunity of state officials from suit have drawn the line at civil actions. Cf., e.g., Tenney v. BrandhoveSearch
-
Federal Speech or Debate Clause, much of the evidence at issue here would be inadmissible. Recently, in United States v. HelstoskiSearch
-
U. S. 477 , 442 U. S. 489 (1979), we reaffirmed our holding in United States v. BrewsterSearch
-
H.R.Conf.Rep. No. 93-1597, p. 7 (1974). Cf. Wolfe v. UnitedSearch
-
Funk v. UnitedSearch
-
Clause has been related abundantly in opinions of this Court, and need not be repeated. See, e.g., United States v. HelstoskiSearch
-
United States v. JohnsonSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Judiciary into the affairs of a coequal branch, and second, the desire to protect legislative independence. Eastland v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. at 442 U. S. 491 . Accord, United States v. JohnsonSearch
-
footing with the interference of one branch of the Federal Government in the affairs of a coequal branch. Baker v. CarrSearch
-
U. S. 186 , 369 U. S. 210 (1962). Cf. Dombrowski v. PfisterSearch
-
Our opinion in National League of Cities v. UserySearch
-
the Speech or Debate Clause is the need to insure legislative independence. Gillock relies heavily on Tenney v. BrandhoveSearch
-
of federal criminal liability as a restraining factor on the conduct of state officials. As recently as O'Shea v. LittletonSearch
-
immunity does not reach 'so far as to immunize criminal conduct proscribed by an Act of Congress. . . . ' Gravel v. UnitedSearch
-
Id. at 414 U. S. 503 (emphasis supplied). Page 445 U. S. 373 Accord, Imbler v. PachtmanSearch
-
however, similar arguments made to support a claim of Executive privilege were found wanting in United States v. NixonSearch
-
to justify denying judicial power to secure all relevant evidence in a criminal proceeding. See also United States v. BurrSearch
-
of Erie R. Co. v. TompkinsSearch
-
Compare United States v. DiCarloSearch
-
F.2d 802 (CA1 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 924 (1978), and United States v. CraigSearch
-
See Lake Country Estates, Inc. v. TahoeSearch
-
has taken note of state privilege laws in determining whether to retain them in the federal system. See, e.g., Trammel v. UnitedSearch
-
Compare Powell v. McCormackSearch
-
to require the seating of Representative Adam Clayton Powell barred by the Speech or Debate Clause), with Bond v. FloydSearch
-
on its interpretation of federal common law, not on the Speech or Debate Clause. See Lake Country Estates, Inc. v. TahoeSearch
-
including state legislators, using evidence of their official acts are not infrequent. See, e.g., United States v. RabbittSearch
-
United States v. MazzeiSearch
-
United States v. HomerSearch
-
F.Supp. 972 (WD Pa.1976). See also Anderson v. UnitedSearch
-
charges here. See United States v. HelstoskiSearch
-
Cf. Gravel v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court United States v. GillockSearch
-
Cf. Wolfe v. UnitedSearch
-
Eastland v. UnitedSearch
-
Accord, United States v. JohnsonSearch
-
Baker v. CarrSearch
-
Cf. Dombrowski v. PfisterSearch
-
Gravel v. UnitedSearch
-
Accord, Imbler v. PachtmanSearch
-
and United States v. CraigSearch
-
Trammel v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial