Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Christopher Vs. Harbury

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 20, 2002

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

63 entries 6 linked 57 unlinked
Show
  1. Lewis Vs. Casey US Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1996
  2. Burns Vs. Ohio US Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1959
  3. GriffIn Vs. Illinois US Supreme Court · Apr 23, 1956
  4. Boddie Vs. Connecticut US Supreme Court · Mar 02, 1971
  5. United States Vs. Shearer US Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1985
  6. U.S. 403 (2002) October Term, 2001 Syllabus Christopher, Former Secretary of State, Et Al. V. Harbury
    Search
  7. National Security Council, and officials of each, common- and international law tort claims, and claims under Bivens v. Six
    Search
  8. to dismiss, we accept Harbury's factual allegations and take them in the light most favorable to her. See Leatherman v. Tarrant
    Search
  9. and injunctive relief,2 and money damages against the officials in their individual capacities on the theory of Bivens v. Six
    Search
  10. for declaratory or injunctive relief, and appealed only the dismissal of the Bivens causes of action. Harbury v. Deutch
    Search
  11. under that general rubric elsewhere, but if we con- 5 The District of Columbia Circuit denied rehearing, Harbury v. Deutch
    Search
  12. of rehearing en bane. 6 The petitioners did not challenge below the existence of a cause of action under Bivens v. Six
    Search
  13. in the prisonlitigation cases, the relief sought may be a law library for a prisoner's use in preparing a case, Bounds v. Smith
    Search
  14. or federal habeas petitions in criminal cases,8 or civil suits asserting family-law rights, e. g., Boddie v. Connecticut
    Search
  15. not in aid of a class of suits yet to be litigated, but of specific cases that cannot now 7See, e. g., Delew v. Wagner
    Search
  16. Swekel v. River
    Search
  17. Vasquez v. Hernandez
    Search
  18. Foster v. Lake
    Search
  19. Williams v. Boston
    Search
  20. Bell v. Milwaukee
    Search
  21. Ryland v. Shapiro
    Search
  22. F.2d 967 , 974-975 (CA5 1983). 8 E. g., Smith v. Bennett
    Search
  23. Mayer v. Chicago
    Search
  24. access may allegedly have caused the loss or inadequate settlement of a meritorious case, e. g., Fos ter v. Lake
    Search
  25. the loss of an opportunity to sue, e. g., Swekel v. River
    Search
  26. suffered injury by being shut out of court. We indicated as much in our most recent case on denial of access, Lewis v. Casey
    Search
  27. of this Court have grounded the right of access to courts in the Article IV Privileges and Immunities Clause, Chambers v. Baltimore
    Search
  28. House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 79 (1873), the First Amendment Petition Clause, Bill Johnson's Restaurants, Inc. v. NLRB
    Search
  29. California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking
    Search
  30. Unlimited, 404 U. S. 508 , 513 (1972), the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause, Murray v. Giarratano
    Search
  31. Walters v. National
    Search
  32. of Radiation Survivors, 473 U. S. 305 , 335 (1985), and the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection, Pennsylvania v. Finley
    Search
  33. U. S. 551 , 557 (1987), and Due Process Clauses, Wolff v. McDonnell
    Search
  34. be addressed by allegations in the complaint sufficient to give fair notice to a defendant. See generally Swierkiewicz v. Sorema
    Search
  35. concerns for the separation of powers in trenching on matters committed to the other branches. See Department of Navy v. Egan
    Search
  36. Chicago & Southern Air Lines, Inc. v. Waterman
    Search
  37. resolve such constitutional issues ought to be avoided where possible, cf. Department of Housing and Urban Development v. Rucker
    Search
  38. Tr. of Proceedings in Harbury v. Deutch
    Search
  39. cf. United States v. Shearer
    Search
  40. of an employee resulting in wrongful death in the military context). But see U. S. Information Agency v. Krc
    Search
  41. or the presence requirements. While there is room to argue for an exception to presence in some situations, cf. Jenco v. Islamic
    Search
  42. consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. JUSTICE THOMAS, concurring in the judgment. In Lewis v. Casey
    Search
  43. necessary to state a backward-looking access claim. 423 the right of access differently, see Harbury v. Deutch
    Search
  44. Syllabus Christopher, Former Secretary of State, Et Al. V. Harbury
    Search
  45. Bivens v. Six
    Search
  46. See Leatherman v. Tarrant
    Search
  47. of Bivens v. Six
    Search
  48. Harbury v. Deutch
    Search
  49. Bounds v. Smith
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial