Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Hartman Vs. Moore

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Apr 26, 2006

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

72 entries 8 linked 64 unlinked
Show
  1. Crawford-el Vs. Britton US Supreme Court · Dec 01, 1997
  2. United States Vs. Armstrong US Supreme Court · May 13, 1996
  3. Carlson Vs. Green US Supreme Court · Apr 22, 1980
  4. Perry Vs. Sindermann US Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1972
  5. Carey Vs. Piphus US Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1978
  6. Albright Vs. Oliver US Supreme Court · Oct 12, 1993
  7. imbler Vs. Pachtman US Supreme Court · Nov 03, 1975
  8. Bordenkircher Vs. Hayes US Supreme Court · Jan 18, 1978
  9. Syllabus October Term, 2005 Hartman V. Moore
    Search
  10. them to any wrongdoing, the District Court acquitted the defendants. Moore then filed an action under Bivens v. Six
    Search
  11. from subjecting an individual to retaliatory actions, including criminal prosecutions, for speaking out. Crawford-El v. Britton
    Search
  12. J., joined. Roberts, C. J., and Alito, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. Hartman v. Moore
    Search
  13. Opinion of the Court Hartman V. Moore
    Search
  14. No. 04-1495 Michael Hartman, Frank Kormann, Pierce Mcintosh, Norman Robbins, and Robert Edwards, Petitioners V. William
    Search
  15. motion for judgment of acquittal. United States v. Recognition
    Search
  16. DC 1989). Moore then brought an action in the Northern District of Texas for civil liability under Bivens v. Six
    Search
  17. the absolute immunity for prosecutorial judgment, and rejected an abuse-of-process claim against the inspectors. Moore v. Valder
    Search
  18. to have the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reinstate the retaliatory-prosecution claim. Moore v. Valder
    Search
  19. were involved, but again dismissed the remaining charges against the United States and the prosecutor. Moore v. Valder
    Search
  20. his FTCA claim against the United States, the dismissal of his claims against the prosecutor was affirmed. Moore v. United
    Search
  21. prosecution suits. Some Circuits burden plaintiffs with the obligation to show its absence. See, e.g., Wood v. Kesler
    Search
  22. Keenan v. Tejeda
    Search
  23. Mozzochi v. Borden
    Search
  24. CA2 1992). Others, including the District of Columbia Circuit, impose no such requirement. See, e.g., Poole v. County
    Search
  25. Haynesworth v. Miller
    Search
  26. see also Perry v. Sindermann
    Search
  27. Mt. Healthy City Bd. of Ed. v. Doyle
    Search
  28. of Bivens . See 403 U. S., at 397. III Despite a procedural history portending another Jarndyce v. Jarndyce
    Search
  29. see also National Archives and Records Admin. v. Favish
    Search
  30. s no-probable-cause requirement a natural feature of the constitutional tort. See Heck v. Humphrey
    Search
  31. at the elements of common-law torts when we think about elements of actions for constitutional violations, see Carey v. Piphus
    Search
  32. more as a source of inspired examples than of prefabricated components of Bivens torts. See, e.g., Albright v. Oliver
    Search
  33. cf. Baker v. McCollan
    Search
  34. s claim that he was fired for speech criticizing the government. See, e.g. , Pickering v. Board
    Search
  35. see also Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan
    Search
  36. not be brought against the prosecutor, who is absolutely immune from liability for the decision to prosecute, Imbler v. Pachtman
    Search
  37. see also Barts v. Joyner
    Search
  38. Dellums v. Powell
    Search
  39. cf. Smiddy v. Varney
    Search
  40. added legal obstacle in the longstanding presumption of regularity accorded to prosecutorial decisionmaking. See Reno v. American-Arab
    Search
  41. given our position that judicial intrusion into executive discretion of such high order should be minimal, see Wayte v. United
    Search
  42. are reasonable grounds to suspend the presumption of regularity behind the charging decision, see Bordenkircher v. Hayes
    Search
  43. See Wilson v. Layne
    Search
  44. on the sufficiency of the evidence to show that a defendant is in fact entitled to the immunity claimed. See Mitchell v. Forsyth
    Search
  45. see also Crawford-El v. Britton
    Search
  46. and Eleventh Circuits, all of which require plaintiffs to show an absence of probable cause. See, e.g. , Izen v. Catalina
    Search
  47. Wood v. Kesler
    Search
  48. Singer v. Fulton
    Search
  49. Post v. Fort
    Search
  50. Magnotti v. Kuntz
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial