Citation network
Burns Vs. Reed, No.
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 30, 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
-
Burns v. ReedSearch
-
No. - 500 U.S. 478 (1991) U.S. Supreme Court Burns v. ReedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
No., 500 U.S. 478 (1991) Burns v. ReedSearch
-
probable cause hearing, but not for giving legal advice to the police. Pp. 500 U. S. 484 -496. (a) Imbler v. PachtmanSearch
-
absolute immunity bears the burden of showing that it is justified by the function in question. See, e.g., Forrester v. WhiteSearch
-
in judicial proceedings, at least so long as the statements were related to the proceedings. See, e.g., Yaselli v. GoffSearch
-
way related to the ultimate decision whether to prosecute. Moreover, that argument was implicitly rejected in Mitchell v. ForsythSearch
-
Tenney v. BrandhoveSearch
-
Imbler, supra, 424 U.S. at 424 U. S. 428 (quoting Gregoire v. BiddleSearch
-
in later cases are consistent with the functional approach to immunity employed in Imbler. See, e.g., Westfall v. ErwinSearch
-
Petitioner's challenge to respondent's participation in the search warrant hearing is similar to the claim in Briscoe v. LaHueSearch
-
related to the proceeding), and also for eliciting false and defamatory testimony from witnesses. See, e.g., Yaselli v. GoffSearch
-
Youmans v. SmithSearch
-
Griffith v. SlinkardSearch
-
Marsh v. EllsworthSearch
-
Jennings v. PaineSearch
-
Hoar v. WoodSearch
-
Mass.193, 197-198 (1841). See also King v. SkinnerSearch
-
see also Veeder, Absolute Immunity in Defamation, 9 Colum.L.Rev. 463, 487-488 (1909). In Yaselli v. GoffSearch
-
Schultz v. StraussSearch
-
Page 500 U. S. 492 Moreover, since the issuance of a search warrant is unquestionably a judicial act, see Stump v. SparkmanSearch
-
Ibid. (quoting Griffith v. SlinkardSearch
-
as Amicus Curiae 20-21. We are not persuaded. First, it is American common law that is determinative, Anderson v. CreightonSearch
-
Since the decision in Imbler v. PachtmanSearch
-
the issue of whether absolute immunity extends to the act of giving legal advice to the police. Compare Wollenbarger v. WilliamsSearch
-
F.2d 930, 937 (CA10 1987), with Burns v. ReedSearch
-
Marx v. GumbinnerSearch
-
Myers v. MorrisSearch
-
a decision holding that federal prosecutors were absolutely immune from suits for malicious prosecution. See Yaselli v. GoffSearch
-
for malicious procurement of a search warrant, post at 500 U. S. 504 , is irrelevant. Cf. Briscoe v. LaHueSearch
-
for their conduct before grand juries. See, e.g., Buckley v. FitzsimmonsSearch
-
Grant v. HollenbachSearch
-
Baez v. HennessySearch
-
Morrison v. BatonSearch
-
Gray v. BellSearch
-
In Harlow v. FitzgeraldSearch
-
Malley, 475 U.S. at 475 U. S. 341 , see also Mitchell v. ForsythSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial