Citation network
Crawford-el Vs. Britton
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Dec 01, 1997
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. 574 (1997) October Term, 1997 Syllabus Crawford-El V. BrittonSearch
-
motive case, a plaintiff must establish motive by clear and convincing evidence, and that the reasoning in Harlow v. FitzgeraldSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U. S., at 818, and eliminated the subjective standard, put forth in Wood v. StricklandSearch
-
invitations to revise established rules that are separate from the qualified immunity defense. See, e. g., Gomez v. ToledoSearch
-
H. Sorrell of Vermont, Richard Cullen of Virginia, Julio A. Brady of the Virgin Islands, Darrell V. McGrawSearch
-
contours of the pleading standard had been clarified in a decision announced while the case was on appeal, see Hunter v. DistrictSearch
-
See Harlow v. FitzgeraldSearch
-
Elliott v. ThomasSearch
-
qualified immunity, are there any circumstances, apart from national security issues of the sort at stake in Halperin v. KissingerSearch
-
C. Metropolitan Police Department, 812 F.2d 1425 , 1435 (CADC 1987), and Siegert V. GilleySearch
-
unconstitutional-motive cases are required by the reasoning in this Court's opinion in Harlow v. FitzgeraldSearch
-
importance of both the underlying issue and a correct understanding of the relationship between our holding in Harlow v. FitzgeraldSearch
-
of plaintiffs bringing damages actions against any government official, whether federal, state, or local. See Butz v. EconoSearch
-
and the reasoning that supports that holding. We shall, therefore, begin by explaining why our hold- 6 Washington v. DavisSearch
-
Personnel Administrator of Mass. v. FeeneySearch
-
U. S. 256 ,274 (1979) (gender). 7 Farmer v. BrennanSearch
-
U. S. 825 , 835-840 (1994). 8 Branti v. FinkelSearch
-
U. S. 507 , 513-517 (1980). 9 E. g., Pickering v. BoardSearch
-
were reviewed in this Court, we considered the defendants' claims to immunity in two separate opinions. In Nixon v. FitzgeraldSearch
-
from damages liability predicated on conduct within the scope of his official duties. Id., at 749. In Harlow v. FitzgeraldSearch
-
immunity standard was informed by three propositions that had been established by earlier cases. First, in Gomez v. ToledoSearch
-
Second, in Butz v. EconomouSearch
-
Third, in Scheuer v. RhodesSearch
-
id., at 249-250. The actual scope of the defense had been the subject of debate within the Court in Wood v. StricklandSearch
-
demanded for the receipt of a government-provided benefit. See Perry v. SindermannSearch
-
defense. See 93 F. 3d, at 815, 838. Such a rule is not required by the holding in Harlow. 11 See Siegert v. GilleySearch
-
in the unflinching discharge of their duties.' Gregoire v. BiddleSearch
-
Harlow, 457 U. S., at 814. 13 Our opinion in Scheuer v. RhodesSearch
-
a sufficient reason for the immunity defense, and thus does not justify its extension to private parties. Wyatt v. ColeSearch
-
that would have provided the basis for rebutting a qualified immunity defense under Wood v. StricklandSearch
-
specific, such as an intent to disadvantage all members of a class that includes the plaintiff, see, e. g., Washington v. DavisSearch
-
conduct (for instance, whether a plaintiff's speech was on a matter of public concern). See generally Anderson v. CreightonSearch
-
that it would have reached the same decision in the absence of the protected conduct. Mt. Healthy City Bd. of Ed. v. DoyleSearch
-
be necessary before the district court can resolve a motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. Anderson v. CreightonSearch
-
see also Mitchell v. ForsythSearch
-
U. S., at 639640, or requiring pleadings of heightened specificity in cases alleging municipal liability, Leatherman v. TarrantSearch
-
policies behind the immunity defense justify interlocutory appeals on questions of evidentiary sufficiency. Johnson v. JonesSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial