Citation network
Parratt Vs. Taylor
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 18, 1981
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. 527 (1981) U.S. Supreme Court Parratt v. TaylorSearch
-
U.S. 527 (1981) Parratt v. TaylorSearch
-
period in the history of this Nation, it was held that there was no federal common law of crimes, United States v. HudsonSearch
-
Goodwin, 7 Cranch 32 (1812), and, since Erie R. Co. v. TompkinsSearch
-
Procunier v. NavaretteSearch
-
U. S. 555 (1978), and Baker v. McCollanSearch
-
The diversity in approaches is legion. See, e.g., Williams v. KelleySearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Beard v. MitchellSearch
-
Fulton Market Cold Storage Co. v. CullertonSearch
-
O'Grady v. MontpelierSearch
-
Bonner v. CoughlinSearch
-
Hampton v. HolmesburgSearch
-
Jones v. MarshallSearch
-
Diamond v. ThompsonSearch
-
Kimbrough v. O'NeilSearch
-
Carter v. EstelleSearch
-
Pitts v. GriffinSearch
-
Russell v. BodnerSearch
-
Johnson v. GlickSearch
-
McCray v. MarylandSearch
-
Carter v. CarlsonSearch
-
Madison v. ManterSearch
-
Howard v. SwensonSearch
-
Whirl v. KernSearch
-
and Striker v. PancherSearch
-
or its legislative history limits the statute solely to intentional deprivations of constitutional rights. In Baker v. McCollanSearch
-
The Court recognized as much in Monroe v. PapeSearch
-
Id. at 365 U. S. 180 . In distinguishing the criminal counterpart which had earlier been at issue in Screws v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. at 365 U. S. 187 . Both Baker v. McCollanSearch
-
and Monroe v. PapeSearch
-
secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. III Since this Court's decision in Monroe v. PapeSearch
-
App. 8. As such, respondent's claims differ from the claims which were before us in Monroe v. PapeSearch
-
supra, which involved violations of the Fourth Amendment, and the claims presented in Estelle v. GambleSearch
-
Amendments have been held applicable to the States by virtue of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Mapp v. OhioSearch
-
Robinson v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Baker v. McCollanSearch
-
could be offered before any actual deprivation took place. For example, in Mullane v. PageSearch
-
Id. at 339 U. S. 315 . More recently, in Bell v. BursonSearch
-
involved in the livelihood of a person, and, as such, could not be summarily taken without a prior hearing. In Fuentes v. ShevinSearch
-
a prior hearing before the State authorized its agents to seize property in a debtor's possession. See also Boddie v. ConnecticutSearch
-
and Sniadach v. FamilySearch
-
to be heard is pretermitted if the State provides a postdeprivation remedy. In North American Cold Storage Co. v. ChicagoSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial