Citation network
Cleavinger Vs. Saxner
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Dec 10, 1985
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. 193 (1985) U.S. Supreme Court Cleavinger v. SaxnerSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U.S. 193 (1985) Cleavinger v. SaxnerSearch
-
had violated their rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments. Id. at 12. See Bivens v. SixSearch
-
the District Court, on reconsideration, reinstated the suit in light of its controlling court's decision in Mary v. RamsdenSearch
-
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, by a divided vote, affirmed. Saxner v. BensonSearch
-
denying such immunity to state correctional officers serving in a similar capacity. Id. at 670. See Reddig v. FairmanSearch
-
Chavis v. RoweSearch
-
F.2d 1281, 1288, cert. denied sub nom. Boles v. ChavisSearch
-
Mary v. RamsdenSearch
-
Because of the importance of the issue, and because the Seventh Circuit rulings, although consistent with Jihaad v. O'BrienSearch
-
F.2d 556, 561 (CA6 1981), were claimed to be in some conflict with the en banc decision of the Fourth Circuit in Ward v. JohnsonSearch
-
Court specifically has pronounced and followed this doctrine of the common law for more than a century. In Bradley v. FisherSearch
-
Ibid. In Pierson v. RaySearch
-
was essential to protect the integrity of the judicial process. 386 U.S. at 386 U. S. 554 . And in Stump v. SparkmanSearch
-
S. 478 , 438 U. S. 513 (1978). Full immunity also has been given to federal and state prosecutors. Yaselli v. GoffSearch
-
and, accordingly, are shielded by absolute immunity. Briscoe v. LaHueSearch
-
And the Court has noted the adoption in this country of the principle of immunity for grand jurors. See Imbler v. PachtmanSearch
-
U.S. at 424 U. S. 423 , n. 20. See also Butz v. EconomouSearch
-
Court has not decided whether state parole officials enjoy absolute immunity as a matter of federal law, see Martinez v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U. S. 284 (1980), federal Page 474 U. S. 201 appellate courts have so held. See, e.g., Sellars v. ProcunierSearch
-
Evans v. DillahuntySearch
-
Powell v. IrvingSearch
-
Court has extended absolute immunity to the President when damages liability is predicated on his official act. Nixon v. FitzgeraldSearch
-
U. S. 731 , 457 U. S. 744 -758 (1982). See Harlow v. FitzgeraldSearch
-
Ibid. See Scheuer v. RlodesSearch
-
supra (police officers). Spalding v. VilasSearch
-
U. S. 483 (1896) (Postmaster General), and Barr v. MatteoSearch
-
associated with court proceedings, and are largely immune from any type of judicial review. See, e.g., United States v. CalandraSearch
-
Costello v. UnitedSearch
-
bear in mind that immunity status is for the benefit of the public, as well as for the individual concerned. Pierson v. RaySearch
-
concerns persons many of whom have demonstrated a proclivity for antisocial, criminal, and violent conduct. See Hudson v. PalmerSearch
-
and, if they are suable and unprotected, perhaps would be disinclined to serve on a discipline committee. See Ward v. JohnsonSearch
-
prison officials, albeit no longer of the rank and file, temporarily diverted from their usual duties. See Ward v. JohnsonSearch
-
obvious pressure to resolve a disciplinary dispute in favor of the institution and their fellow employee. See Ponte v. RealSearch
-
hearing body. Morrissey v. BrewerSearch
-
Sellars v. ProcunierSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial