Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Nixon Vs. Fitzgerald

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 24, 1982

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

73 entries 12 linked 61 unlinked
Show
  1. Havens Realty Corp. Vs. Coleman US Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1982
    Relied / Followed
  2. Stump Vs. Sparkman US Supreme Court · Mar 28, 1978
  3. imbler Vs. Pachtman US Supreme Court · Nov 03, 1975
  4. Spalding Vs. Vilas US Supreme Court · Mar 02, 1896
  5. Scheuer Vs. Rhodes US Supreme Court · Apr 17, 1974
  6. Pierson Vs. Ray US Supreme Court · Apr 11, 1967
  7. United States Vs. Burr US Supreme Court · Jun 03, 1895
  8. Harlow Vs. Fitzgerald US Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1982
  9. Mcadams Vs. Mcsurely US Supreme Court · Jun 26, 1978
  10. Aetna Life Ins. Co. Vs. Haworth US Supreme Court · Mar 01, 1937
  11. Butz Vs. Economou US Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1978
  12. Ferri Vs. Ackerman US Supreme Court · Dec 04, 1979
  13. U.S. 731 (1982) U.S. Supreme Court Nixon v. Fitzgerald
    Search
  14. U.S. 731 (1982) Nixon v. Fitzgerald
    Search
  15. petitioner and two White House aides (petitioners in Harlow v. Fitzgerald
    Search
  16. doctrine of Cohen v. Beneficial
    Search
  17. with a considerable financial stake in the resolution of the question presented in this Court. Cf. Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman
    Search
  18. because of the special nature of their responsibilities, require absolute exemption from liability. Cf. Butz v. Economou
    Search
  19. however, preferred to present his grievances in public. After he had brought suit and won an injunction, Fitzgerald v. Hampton
    Search
  20. The District Court dismissed the action under the District of Columbia's 3-year statute of limitations, Fitzgerald v. Seamans
    Search
  21. and the Court of Appeals affirmed as to all but one defendant, White House aide Alexander Butterfield, Fitzgerald v. Seamans
    Search
  22. The Court of Appeals dismissed summarily. It apparently did so on the ground that its recent decision in Halpern v. Kissinger
    Search
  23. Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay
    Search
  24. has held that orders denying claims of absolute immunity are appealable under the Cohen criteria. See Helstoski v. Meanor
    Search
  25. Abney v. United
    Search
  26. of Columbia Circuit also has treated orders denying absolute immunity as appealable under Cohen. See Briggs v. Goodwin
    Search
  27. McSurely v. McClellan
    Search
  28. banc, 180 U.S.App.D.C. 101, 107-108, n. 18, 553 F.2d 1277, 1283-1284, n. 18 (1976), cert. dism'd sub nom. McAdams v. McSurely
    Search
  29. decision in Halperin v. Kissinger
    Search
  30. question. Although the Court of Appeals had ruled in Halperin v. Kissinger
    Search
  31. alleging a threatened breach of essential Presidential prerogatives under the separation of powers, see United States v. Nixon
    Search
  32. U. S. 363 , 455 U. S. 371 (1982), quoting Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth
    Search
  33. recognized that government officials are entitled to some form of immunity from suits for civil damages. In Spalding v. Vilas
    Search
  34. subsequent to Spalding have extended the defense of immunity to actions besides those at common law. In Tenney v. Brandhove
    Search
  35. than the general language of the statute. Id. at 341 U. S. 376 . Similarly, the decision in Pierson v. Ray
    Search
  36. Id. at 386 U. S. 554 , quoting Scott v. Stansfield
    Search
  37. L.R. 3 Ex. 220, 223 (1868). See Bradley v. Fisher
    Search
  38. U.S. at 386 U. S. 557 . In Scheuer v. Rhodes
    Search
  39. rights. In that case, we rejected the officials' claim to absolute immunity under the doctrine of Spalding v. Vilas
    Search
  40. notably judges and prosecutors -- required the continued recognition of absolute immunity. See, e.g., Imbler v. Pachtman
    Search
  41. state judge possesses absolute immunity for all judicial acts). This approach was reviewed in detail in Butz v. Economou
    Search
  42. constitutional or congressional guidance, our immunity decisions have been informed by the common law. See Butz v. Economou
    Search
  43. as illuminated Page 457 U. S. 748 by our history and the structure of our government. See, e.g., Butz v. Economou
    Search
  44. relies on cases in which we have recognized immunity of this scope for governors and cabinet officers. E.g., Butz v. Economou
    Search
  45. the duties of his office. Ferri v. Ackerman
    Search
  46. of jurisdiction Page 457 U. S. 754 over the President of the United States. See, e.g., United States v. Nixon
    Search
  47. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer
    Search
  48. to be served against the dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch. See Nixon v. Administrator
    Search
  49. not in derogation of the separation of powers, but to maintain their proper balance, cf. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer
    Search
  50. supra, or to vindicate the public interest in an ongoing criminal prosecution, see United States v. Nixon
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial