Citation network
Pulliam Vs. Allen
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 14, 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
-
U.S. 522 (1984) U.S. Supreme Court Pulliam v. AllenSearch
-
U.S. 522 (1984) Pulliam v. AllenSearch
-
relief properly had been awarded against petitioner. It therefore affirmed the award of attorney's fees. Allen v. BurkeSearch
-
if the official was immune from the underlying relief on which the award was premised. See Supreme Court of Virginia v. ConsumersSearch
-
into our judicial system, and that they should not be abrogated absent clear legislative intent to do so. See Pierson v. RaySearch
-
courts, Lord Coke forbade the interference by courts of equity with matters properly triable at common law. See Heath v. RydleySearch
-
See Scott v. StansfieldSearch
-
Haggard v. PelicerSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
the need to preserve the King's authority to the public interest in independent judicial decisionmaking. See Taaffe v. DownesSearch
-
reprinted in footnote in Calder v. HalketSearch
-
Scott v. StansfieldSearch
-
L.R.Ex., at 223, quoted in Bradley v. FisherSearch
-
over the ecclesiastical courts, since the King's Bench exercised no direct review over those tribunals. In Shatter v. FriendSearch
-
Page 466 U. S. 534 In Gould v. GapperSearch
-
The practice has continued into modern times. In King v. EmersonSearch
-
Taaffe v. DownesSearch
-
necessary to limit this collateral relief to situations where no alternative avenue of review was available. See Gould v. GapperSearch
-
a showing of an inadequate remedy at law and of a serious risk of irreparable harm, see Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. WestoverSearch
-
in a way that would prevent federal injunctive relief against a state judge. In Pierson v. RaySearch
-
U. S. 225 , 407 U. S. 240 (1972). See also Pierson v. RaySearch
-
of Congress' intent in enacting the Civil Rights Acts has not lost its force with the passage of time. In Mitchum v. FosterSearch
-
to one who succeeds in obtaining injunctive relief against a judicial officer. v. PetitionerSearch
-
not this Court, to determine whether and to what extent to abrogate the judiciary's common law immunity. See Pierson v. RaySearch
-
Hutto v. FinneySearch
-
See also Page 466 U. S. 544 Supreme Court of Virginia v. ConsumersSearch
-
See Timmerman v. BrownSearch
-
F.2d 811, 814 (1975), rev'd on other grounds sub nom. Leeke v. TimmermanSearch
-
Although the Court in Supreme Court of Virginia v. ConsumersSearch
-
Heimbach v. LyonsSearch
-
Timmerman v. BrownSearch
-
Slavin v. CurrySearch
-
WXYZ, Inc. v. HandSearch
-
Harris v. HarveySearch
-
Richardson v. KoshibaSearch
-
have taken contradictory positions on whether judges are immune from declaratory and injunctive relief. Compare Koen v. LongSearch
-
aff'g 302 F.Supp. 1383, 1389 (ED Mo.1969) (no immunity), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 923 (1971), with Smallwood v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 486 F.2d 1407 (1973), aff'g without opinion, 358 F.Supp. 398, 403 (ED Mo.) (immunity), and Tate v. ArnoldSearch
-
Bonner v. CircuitSearch
-
Court of St. Louis, Missouri, 526 F.2d 1331, 1334, and it now expressly has declined to do so. See R. W. T. v. DaltonSearch
-
See Supreme Court of Virginia v. ConsumersSearch
-
for an erroneous judicial action than when the question involved the reach of the prerogative writs. Compare Gwinne v. PooleSearch
-
Lut. 935, 125 Eng.Rep. 522 (C.P. 1692), with Gould v. GapperSearch
-
In Harrison v. BurlwellSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial