Citation network
Harlow 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
-
U.S. 800 (1982) U.S. Supreme Court Harlow v. FitzgeraldSearch
-
U.S. 800 (1982) Harlow v. FitzgeraldSearch
-
in the same alleged conspiracy to violate respondent's constitutional and statutory rights as was involved in Nixon v. FitzgeraldSearch
-
damages -- including certain officials of the Executive Branch, such as prosecutors and similar officials, see Butz v. EconomouSearch
-
U. S. 478 , and the President, Nixon v. FitzgeraldSearch
-
discretion and the related public interest in encouraging the vigorous exercise of official authority. Scheuer v. RhodesSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
for Presidential aides. Cf. Butz, supra. Pp. 457 U. S. 808 -813. (a) The rationale of Gravel v. UnitedSearch
-
House aides to former President Richard M. Nixon. As the alleged conspiracy is the same as that involved in Nixon v. FitzgeraldSearch
-
In denying the motion, the District Court upheld the legal sufficiency of Fitzgerald's Bivens (Bivens v. SixSearch
-
II As we reiterated today in Nixon v. FitzgeraldSearch
-
The absolute immunity of legislators, in their legislative functions, see, e.g., Eastland v. UnitedSearch
-
States Servicemen's Fund, 421 U. S. 491 (1975), and of judges, in their judicial functions, see, e.g., Stump v. SparkmanSearch
-
immunity to certain officials of the Executive Branch. These include prosecutors and similar officials, see Butz v. EconomouSearch
-
in adjudicative functions, id. at 438 U. S. 513 -517, and the President of the United States, see Nixon v. FitzgeraldSearch
-
executive officials in general, however, our cases make plain that qualified immunity represents the norm. In Scheuer v. RhodesSearch
-
the requisite protection from qualified or good faith immunity. Id. at 416 U. S. 247 -248. In Butz v. EconomouSearch
-
immunity from private lawsuits alleging constitutional violations -- consequences found sufficient in Spalding v. VilasSearch
-
U. S. 483 (1896), and Barr v. MatteoSearch
-
Id. at 438 U. S. 506 . This we reaffirmed today in Nixon v. FitzgeraldSearch
-
an incident of their offices as Presidential aides. In deciding this claim, we do not write on an empty page. In Butz v. EconomouSearch
-
B In disputing the controlling authority of Butz, petitioners rely on the principles developed in Gravel v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. at 408 U. S. 625 . See Hutchinson v. ProxmireSearch
-
office, an action for damages may offer the only realistic avenue for vindication of constitutional guarantees. Butz v. EconomouSearch
-
Bivens v. SixSearch
-
Gregoire v. BiddleSearch
-
Hanrahan v. HamptonSearch
-
immunity is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded by a defendant official. Gomez v. ToledoSearch
-
clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. See Procunier v. NavaretteSearch
-
with the record so far developed, and also is better situated to make any such further findings as may be necessary. v. TheSearch
-
Id. at 99a-100a, 180a-181a. This memorandum, quoted in Nixon v. FitzgeraldSearch
-
in Support of Summary Judgment, supra, at 26. The history of Fitzgerad's litigation is recounted in Nixon v. FitzgeraldSearch
-
As in Nixon v. FitzgeraldSearch
-
immunity provided to United States Senators and Representatives under the Speech and Debate Clause. See Eastland v. UnitedSearch
-
s administration without reference to the functions that particular officeholders are assigned by the President. Butz v. EconomouSearch
-
Supreme Court of Virginia v. ConsumersSearch
-
In Imbler v. PachtmanSearch
-
have ruled that prosecutors do not enjoy absolute immunity for acts taken in those capacities. See, e.g., Mancini v. LesterSearch
-
Forsyth v. KleindienstSearch
-
in extending absolute immunity to executive officials when they are engaged in quasi-prosecutorial functions. See Butz v. EconomouSearch
-
Our decision today in Nixon v. FitzgeraldSearch
-
Cf. United States v. NixonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial