Citation network
Buckley Vs. Fitzsimmons
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 22, 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
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 259 (1993) October Term, 1992 Syllabus Buckley V. FitzsimmonsSearch
-
the constitutional wrong is complete before the case begins. On remand from this Court, it found that nothing in Burns v. ReedSearch
-
do is determined by the nature of the function performed, not the identity of the actor who performed it, Forrester v. WhiteSearch
-
Imbler v. PachtSearch
-
the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that the prosecutors had absolute immunity on both claims. Buckley v. FitzsimmonsSearch
-
extent of immunity depended on the nature of those claims. The court reasoned that, because claims based on Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
vacated the judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings in light of our intervening decision in Burns v. ReedSearch
-
the District Court, see id., at 45-47, and held that those actions were protected by absolute immunity. Buckley v. FitzsimmonsSearch
-
who, acting under color of state law, commits the prohibited acts. In Tenney v. BrandhoveSearch
-
them. Pierson v. RaySearch
-
U. S. 547 , 554-555 (1967). See also Newport v. FactSearch
-
Most public officials are entitled only to qualified immunity. Harlow v. FitzgeraldSearch
-
Burns v. ReedSearch
-
Antoine v. ByersSearch
-
in recognizing absolute immunity for state actors in this context. Forrester v. WhiteSearch
-
in determining whether the functions of contemporary prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity. In Imbler v. PachtmanSearch
-
which would not. Id., at 431, and n.33. We applied the Imbler analysis two Terms ago in Burns v. ReedSearch
-
for executive officers, Malley v. BriggsSearch
-
U. S., at 340, quoting Harlow v. FitzgeraldSearch
-
Hampton v. ChicagoSearch
-
of action with the question whether the defendant is entitled to absolute immunity for his actions. 6 Cf. Burns v. ReedSearch
-
testimony, of course, they would not be entitled to anything more than qualified immunity. 7 See Imbler v. PachtmanSearch
-
Flint v. PikeSearch
-
Judicial Proceedings, 9 Colum. L. Rev. 463, 489 (1909) (footnotes omitted). See, e. g., Viosca v. LandfriedSearch
-
Youmans v. SmithSearch
-
U. S., at 491, quoting Imbler v. PachtmanSearch
-
that have addressed this issue have applied only qualified immunity to press statements, see, e. g., Powers v. CoeSearch
-
Marrero v. HialeahSearch
-
Gobel v. Mari-Search
-
England v. HendricksSearch
-
Marx v. GumbinnerSearch
-
cf. Rose v. BartleSearch
-
at trial, see ante, at 267, n. 3-acts which might state a claim for denial of due process, see, e. g., Mooney v. HolohanSearch
-
use in a fashion that deprives someone of a fair trial or otherwise harms him, violates the Constitution. See Buckley v. FitzsimmonsSearch
-
their origin in historical practice and have resulted in a functional approach. Ante, at 267-268. See also Burns v. ReedSearch
-
Syllabus Buckley V. FitzsimmonsSearch
-
Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
In Tenney v. BrandhoveSearch
-
Newport v. FactSearch
-
In Imbler v. PachtmanSearch
-
Cf. Burns v. ReedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial