Citation network
United States Vs. Stanley
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 25, 1987
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
- Distinguished
- Distinguished
- Distinguished
-
U.S. 669 (1987) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. StanleySearch
-
U.S. 669 (1987) United States v. StanleySearch
-
District Court granted the Government summary judgment on the ground that the suit was barred by the doctrine of Feres v. UnitedSearch
-
the case upon concluding that respondent had at least a colorable constitutional claim under the doctrine of Bivens v. SixSearch
-
reaffirmed its Bivens decision as to the individual federal employee defendants, ruling that Chappell v. WallaceSearch
-
No. 788141-Civ-CF, p. 2 (SD Fla., May 14, 1979), and that his FTCA suit was therefore barred by the doctrine of Feres v. UnitedSearch
-
have dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, rather than disposing of the case on the merits. Stanley v. CIASearch
-
Stanley could raise either under the FTCA or directly under the Constitution against individual officers under Bivens v. SixSearch
-
within the Feres exception to the FTCA. See United States v. BrownSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
action. It cited as sole authority for that rejection the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's decision in Wallace v. ChappellSearch
-
Stanley v. CIASearch
-
service had not been made on the others), but before those motions were ruled on, we issued our decision in Chappell v. WallaceSearch
-
was taken, the Court of Appeals further determined that recent precedent in the Eleventh Circuit, including Johnson v. UnitedSearch
-
why that action was improper, and additional reasons can perhaps be found in our recent decision in United States v. JohnsonSearch
-
p. 143 (1977). See Pritchard-Keang Nam Corp. v. JaworskiSearch
-
United States v. BearSearch
-
Time, Inc. v. RaganoSearch
-
held that actions for damages could be brought directly under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, Davis v. PassmanSearch
-
U. S. 228 (1979), and under the Eighth Amendment's proscription against cruel and unusual punishment, Carlson v. GreenSearch
-
U.S. at 446 U. S. 18 -19. In Chappell (and in Bush v. LucasSearch
-
civilian personnel, and that the chain-of-command concerns at the heart of Chappell and cases such as Gaspard v. UnitedSearch
-
CA5 1983) (plaintiff was ordered to expose himself to radiation from nuclear test), cert. denied sub nom. Sheehan v. UnitedSearch
-
Court of Appeals in 1981, 639 F.2d at 1150-1153, and there is no warrant for reexamining that ruling here. See Allen v. McCurrySearch
-
that bear on the propriety of respondents' Bivens action also formed the basis of this Court's decision in Feres v. UnitedSearch
-
to redress designed to halt or prevent the constitutional violation, rather than the award of money damages. See Brown v. GlinesSearch
-
U. S. 677 (1973). Such suits, like the case of Wilkes v. DinsmanSearch
-
as extensive Page 483 U. S. 684 as the exception to the FTCA established by Feres and United States v. JohnsonSearch
-
case (and, presumably, in all Bivens actions). In the sole case he relies upon for his novel analysis, Davis v. PassmanSearch
-
injuries caused by Members of Congress where the constitutionally prescribed immunity does not apply. Thus, Davis v. PassmanSearch
-
testing program or followup. Stanley claims that these names first became available to him from the record in Sweet v. UnitedSearch
-
See Jorden v. NationalSearch
-
Trerice v. SummonsSearch
-
Mollnow v. CarltonSearch
-
Gaspard v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 713 F.2d 1097, 1103-1104 (CA5 1983), cert. denied sub nom. Sheehan v. UnitedSearch
-
This distinction also explains why the author of this opinion, who dissented in United States v. JohnsonSearch
-
Bivens v. SixSearch
-
United States v. BrandtSearch
-
however, is that Government officials (military or civilian) must not be left with such freedom. See, e.g., Jaffee v. UnitedSearch
-
Schnurman v. UnitedSearch
-
Thornwell v. UnitedSearch
-
Barrett v. UnitedSearch
-
action solely on the basis of an unwarranted extension of the narrow exception to this rule created in Chappell v. WallaceSearch
-
In Davis v. PassmanSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial