Citation network
Johnson Vs. Fankell
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 09, 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
-
U.S. 911 (1997) October Term, 1996 Syllabus Johnson Et Al. V. FankellSearch
-
and from the burdens of trial. Harlow v. FitzgeraldSearch
-
be binding on federal courts, which have no authority to place a different construction upon it. See, e. g., New York v. FerberSearch
-
Court's dismissal of the appeal rested squarely on a neutral state rule for administering state courts. Howlett v. RoseSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
based solely on whether the claim is asserted in state or federal court, petitioners misplace their reliance on Felder v. CaseySearch
-
see Johnson v. JonesSearch
-
Texas, Jeffrey L. Amestoy of Vermont, Julio A. Brady of the Virgin Islands, Christine O. Gregoire of Washington, Darrell v. McGrawSearch
-
and Behrens v. PelletierSearch
-
qualified immunity on the theory that such review is necessary to protect a substantial federal right, see McLin v. TrimbleSearch
-
Lakewood v. BraceSearch
-
a qualified immunity defense for both federal officials sued under the implied cause of action asserted in Bivens v. SixSearch
-
Ibid. Consistent with that purpose, we held in Mitchell v. ForSearch
-
U. S. 800 , 818 (1982). 3While Mitchell v. ForsythSearch
-
U. S. 511 (1985), involved a Bivens v. SixSearch
-
See, e. g., Johnson v. JonesSearch
-
on a state statute different from the one rendered by the highest court of the State. See, e. g., New York v. FerberSearch
-
Exxon Corp. v. DepartmentSearch
-
Commissioner v. EstateSearch
-
fundamental to our system of federalism, is applicable to procedural as well as substantive rules. See Wardius v. OregonSearch
-
doctrine first recognized in Cohen v. BeneficialSearch
-
holding these and similar issues of absolute immunity to be appealable under the collateral order doctrine, see Abney v. UnitedSearch
-
Helstoski v. MeanorSearch
-
U. S., at 528-530 (footnote omitted). 6 See, e. g., Richardson v. ChevrefilsSearch
-
Murray v. WhiteSearch
-
Park County v. CooneySearch
-
Goldston v. AmericanSearch
-
of counsel is appealable under state collateral order doctrine notwithstanding Richardson-Merrell Inc. v. KollerSearch
-
Hanson v. FederalSearch
-
A. 2d 785, 787-788 (1996) (same for class certification denial notwithstanding Coopers & Lybrand v. LivesaySearch
-
Relying heavily on Felder v. CaseySearch
-
rested squarely on a neutral state Rule regarding the administration of the state courts.9 As we explained in Howlett v. RoseSearch
-
See Brief for Petitioners 22. 9Unlike the notice-of-claim rule at issue in Felder v. CaseySearch
-
S., at 140-145, Idaho Appellate Rule 11(a)(1) does not target civil rights claims against the State. See also Howlett v. RoseSearch
-
with utmost caution before deciding that it is obligated to entertain the claim. See Missouri ex rel. Southern R. Co. v. MayfieldSearch
-
Georgia Rail Road & Banking Co. v. MusgroveSearch
-
Douglas v. NewSearch
-
see also Southland Corp. v. KeatingSearch
-
court, the officials' claim to immunity was so substantial that the suit should not proceed. 11 See also Brown v. WesternSearch
-
Garrett v. Moore-McCormackSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial