Citation network
Davis Vs. Scherer
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 28, 1984
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
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U.S. 183 (1984) U.S. Supreme Court Davis v. SchererSearch
-
U.S. 183 (1984) Davis v. SchererSearch
-
reference to clearly established law. No other circumstances are relevant to the issue of qualified immunity. Harlow v. FitzgeraldSearch
-
Five days after entry of the District Court's order, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decided Weisbrod v. DoniganSearch
-
test of Scheuer v. RhodesSearch
-
Id. at 21. The Court of Appeals affirmed on the basis of the District Court's opinion. Scherer v. GrahamSearch
-
determining when an official may assert the qualified immunity defense has been clarified by recent cases, see Wood v. StricklandSearch
-
The District Court's analysis of appellants' qualified immunity, written before our decision in Harlow v. FitzgeraldSearch
-
surrounding appellee's separation from his job. This Court applied that standard in Scheuer v. RhodesSearch
-
U.S. at 416 U. S. 247 -248. As subsequent cases recognized, Wood v. StricklandSearch
-
official's conduct in light of the governing law, and an inquiry into the official's subjective state of mind. Harlow v. FitzgeraldSearch
-
at the time of the conduct in question. As the District Court recognized in rejecting appellee's contention, Weisbrod v. DoniganSearch
-
And appellee also recognizes that Harlow v. FitzgeraldSearch
-
Procunier v. NavaretteSearch
-
their conduct may give rise to liability for damages and only if unjustified lawsuits are quickly terminated. See Butz v. EconomouSearch
-
The District Court relied in part on the reasoning of Williams v. TreenSearch
-
current state statute was never applied to appellee, he lacks standing to question its constitutionality. Cf. Golden v. ZwicklerSearch
-
Cf. Flournoy v. WienerSearch
-
Leroy v. GreatSearch
-
Board of Regents v. RothSearch
-
the competing interests -- of the employee and the State -- implicated in the official decision at issue. See Mathews v. EldridgeSearch
-
As the Court had considered circumstances in which no hearing at all had been provided prior to termination, Perry v. SindermannSearch
-
U. S. 593 (1972), or in which the requirements of due process were met, Board of Regents v. RothSearch
-
when the property interests protected by the Fourteenth Amendment are created by state law. See Board of Regents v. RothSearch
-
suits, see, e.g., Maine v. ThiboutotSearch
-
and in suits against federal officers under Bivens v. SixSearch
-
Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388 (1971). See Butz v. EconomouSearch
-
and that authority remains discretionary however egregiously it is abused. Cf. Kendall v. StokesSearch
-
JUSTICE MARSHALL, JUSTICE BLACKMUN, and JUSTICE STEVENS join, concurring in part and dissenting in part. In Harlow v. FitzgeraldSearch
-
Connally Page 468 U. S. 201 v. GeneralSearch
-
public employees have interests in maintaining their jobs that cannot be abridged without due process. E.g., Slochower v. BoardSearch
-
Board of Regents v. RothSearch
-
interest need not not be preceded by opportunity for some kind of hearing, see, e.g., Central Union Trust Co. v. GarvanSearch
-
Ewing v. MytingerSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Davis v. SchererSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial