Citation network
Albright Vs. Oliver
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Oct 12, 1993
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. 266 (1993) October Term, 1993 Syllabus Albright V. OliverSearch
-
Collins v. HarkerSearch
-
such a claim. Graham v. ConnorSearch
-
that Amendment's relevance to the liberty deprivations that go hand in hand with criminal prosecutions. See Gerstein v. PughSearch
-
case, given the fact that Illinois provides a tort remedy for malicious prosecution and the Court's holding in Parratt v. TaylorSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed, 975 F.2d 343 (1992), relying on our decision in Paul v. DavisSearch
-
F. 2d, at 345, citing Brummett v. GambleSearch
-
are the same as the common-law tort of malicious prosecution. See, e. g., Lee v. MihalichSearch
-
See also Sanders v. EnglishSearch
-
Robinson v. MaruffiSearch
-
Strength v. HubertSearch
-
law malicious prosecution. The exact standards announced by the courts escape easy classification. See, e. g., Torres v. SuperintendentSearch
-
Usher v. LosSearch
-
Googan v. WixomSearch
-
Baker v. McCollanSearch
-
The first step in any such claim is to identify the specific constitutional right allegedly infringed. Graham v. ConnorSearch
-
and Baker v. McCollanSearch
-
that his surrender to the State's show of authority constituted a seizure for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. Terry v. OhioSearch
-
Brower v. CountySearch
-
U. S. 593 , 596 (1989).5 We begin analysis of petitioner's claim by repeating our observation in Collins v. HarkerSearch
-
family, procreation, and the right to bodily integrity. See, e. g., Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. CaseySearch
-
from those recognized in this group of cases. Petitioner relies on our observations in cases such as United States v. SalernoSearch
-
U. S. 739 , 746 (1987), and Daniels v. WilliamsSearch
-
sheds little light on the scope of substantive due process. Petitioner points in particular to language from Hurtado v. CaliforniaSearch
-
protections contained in the Bill of Rights were made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. See Mapp v. OhioSearch
-
U. S. 643 (1961), overruling Wolf v. ColoradoSearch
-
U. S. 1 (1964), overruling Twining v. NewSearch
-
U. S. 784 (1969), overruling Palko v. ConnecticutSearch
-
U. S. 335 (1963), overruling Betts v. BradySearch
-
and holding that the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel was applicable to the States. See also Klopfer v. NorthSearch
-
Washington v. TexasSearch
-
Dun can v. LouisianaSearch
-
Amendment's relevance to the deprivations of liberty that go hand in hand with criminal prosecutions. See Gerstein v. PughSearch
-
Id., at 118-119. See also Beck v. WashingtonSearch
-
Id., at 362, quoting Leland v. OregonSearch
-
Frankfurter, J., dissenting). Similarly, other cases relied on by the dissent, including Mooney v. HolohanSearch
-
U. S. 103 (1935), Napue v. IllinoisSearch
-
U. S. 264 (1959), Brady v. MarylandSearch
-
U. S. 83 (1963), Giglio v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 405 U. S. 150 (1972), and United States v. AgursSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial