Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Hafer Vs. Melo

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Oct 15, 1991

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

39 entries 6 linked 33 unlinked
Show
  1. Monroe Vs. Pape US Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1961
  2. Scheuer Vs. Rhodes US Supreme Court · Apr 17, 1974
  3. imbler Vs. Pachtman US Supreme Court · Nov 03, 1975
  4. Harlow Vs. Fitzgerald US Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1982
  5. Davis Vs. Passman US Supreme Court · Jun 05, 1979
  6. United States Vs. Bass US Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1971
  7. U.S. 21 (1991) October Term, 1991 Syllabus Hafer V. Melo
    Search
  8. The District Court dismissed the latter claims under Will v. Michigan
    Search
  9. it in some capacity, 22 whether they act in accordance with their authority or misuse it. Scheuer v. Rhodes
    Search
  10. JUSTICE O'CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court. In Will v. Michigan
    Search
  11. or her personal capacity. 912 F. 2d, at 635636. Several other Courts of Appeals adhere to this practice. See Con ner v. Reinhard
    Search
  12. Houston v. Reich
    Search
  13. Lundgren v. McDaniel
    Search
  14. F.2d 600 , 603-604 (CAll 1987). Still others impose a more rigid pleading requirement. See Wells v. Brown
    Search
  15. Nix v. Norman
    Search
  16. II In Kentucky v. Graham
    Search
  17. way of pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is an agent.''' Id., at 165 (quoting Monell v. New
    Search
  18. defenses such as objectively reasonable reliance on existing law. Id., at 166-167. Our decision in Will v. Michigan
    Search
  19. when it seeks to do so. Will, supra, at 65 (quoting United States v. Bass
    Search
  20. for actions they take in their official capacity. Although one Court of Appeals has endorsed this view, see Cowan v. University
    Search
  21. U. S. 232 , 243 (1974) (quoting Monroe v. Pape
    Search
  22. requirement. Lugar v. Edmondson
    Search
  23. seeking absolute immunity must show that such immunity is justified for the governmental function at issue, Burns v. Reed
    Search
  24. State executive officials are not entitled to absolute immunity for their official actions. Scheuer v. Rhodes
    Search
  25. employment decisions, even if the same official has absolute immunity when performing other functions. See Forrester v. White
    Search
  26. supra (discharge of Air Force employee, allegedly orchestrated by senior White House aides) (action under Bivens v. Six
    Search
  27. To the extent that Hafer argues from the Eleventh Amendment itself, she makes a claim that failed in Scheuer v. Rhodes
    Search
  28. But such concerns are properly addressed within the framework of our personal immunity jurisprudence. See Forrester v. White
    Search
  29. Syllabus HAFER v. MELO
    Search
  30. Will v. Michigan
    Search
  31. of the Court. In Will v. Michigan
    Search
  32. See Wells v. Brown
    Search
  33. Monell v. New
    Search
  34. Cowan v. University
    Search
  35. Lugar v. Edmondson
    Search
  36. Burns v. Reed
    Search
  37. See Forrester v. White
    Search
  38. Bivens v. Six
    Search
  39. Edelman v. Jordan
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial