Citation network
Wyatt Vs. Cole
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 18, 1992
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. 158 (1992) October Term, 1991 Syllabus Wyatt V. ColeSearch
-
other things, the court held the statute unconstitutional and assumed that Cole was subject to liability under Lugar v. EdmondsonSearch
-
See, e. g., Owen v. CitySearch
-
immediately appealable, qualified immunity from suit accorded government officials under, e. g., Harlow v. FitzgeraldSearch
-
U. S. 159 800, and Mitchell v. ForsythSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
the cause and filed a brief for respondents. JUSTICE O'CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court. In Lugar v. EdmondsonSearch
-
Eighth and Eleventh Circuits have determined that private defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. See Buller v. BuechlerSearch
-
Jones v. PreuitSearch
-
certain circumstances, private parties acting under color of state law are not entitled to such an immunity. See Downs v. SawtelleSearch
-
Conner v. SantaSearch
-
Howerton v. GabicaSearch
-
but has established a good faith defense. Duncan v. PeckSearch
-
individuals of their federally guaranteed rights and to provide relief to victims if such deterrence fails. Carey v. PiphusSearch
-
U. S. 247 , 254-257 (1978). In Lugar v. EdmondsonSearch
-
immunity to respondents. In so doing, the Court of Appeals followed one of its prior cases, Folsom Investment Co. v. MooreSearch
-
Owen v. CitySearch
-
of Independence, 445 U. S. 622 , 637 (1980) (quoting Pierson v. RaySearch
-
not intend to abrogate such immunities when it imposed liability for actions taken under color of state law. See Tower v. GloverSearch
-
although public prosecutors and judges were accorded absolute immunity at common law, Imbler v. PachtmanSearch
-
who, like respondents, set the wheels of government in motion by 165 instigating a legal action. Malley v. BriggsSearch
-
intend to abrogate such defenses when it enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1871. We adopted similar reasoning in Pierson v. RaySearch
-
the qualified immunity from suit accorded government officials under Harlow v. FitzgeraldSearch
-
An derson v. CreightonSearch
-
U. S. 635 , 645 (1987), was reinforced by our decision in Mitchell v. ForsythSearch
-
respondents asserted below.2 But, 2 In arguing that respondents are entitled to qualified immunity under Harlow v. FitzgeraldSearch
-
talented candidates were not deterred by the threat of damages suits from entering public service. See, e. g., Wood v. StricklandSearch
-
Butz v. EconoSearch
-
to justify such an expansion. Unlike school board members, see Wood, supra, or police officers, see Malley v. BriggsSearch
-
liability under Lugar v. EdmondsonSearch
-
additional burdens. Because those issues are not fairly before us, however, we leave them for another day. Cf. Yee v. EscondidoSearch
-
U. S., 519, 534-538 (1992). IV As indicated above, the District Court assumed that under Lugar v. EdmondsonSearch
-
post, at 176-177. In Tenney v. BrandhoveSearch
-
had not eradicated the absolute immunity granted legislators under the common law. And in Pierson v. RaySearch
-
Burns v. ReedSearch
-
for public officials, however, we have diverged to a substantial degree from the historical standards. In Harlow v. FitzgeraldSearch
-
acted in light of existing legal principles. Owen v. CitySearch
-
at 95. Our cases on the subject, beginning with Har low v. FitzgeraldSearch
-
decided by the court rather than a jury, and on which an interlocutory appeal is available to defendants. Mitchell v. ForsythSearch
-
lack of probable cause. Moreover, the question of the defendant's beliefs was almost always one for the jury. Stewart v. SonnebornSearch
-
is a factual one, and a plaintiff may rely on circumstantial rather than direct evidence to make his case. Siegert v. GilleySearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial