Citation network
Osborn Vs. Haley
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 22, 2007
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
-
Syllabus October Term, 2006 Osborn V. HaleySearch
-
certification and denying substitution of the United States as defendant. Under the collateral order doctrine of Cohen v. BeneficialSearch
-
This Court held, in Thermtron Products, Inc. v. HermansdorferSearch
-
suit immunity not by what the court finds, but by what the complaint alleges. This position is supported by Willingham v. MorganSearch
-
essential to certification. Immunity-related issues should be decided at the earliest opportunity. See, e.g., Hunter v. BryantSearch
-
in part and dissenting in part. Scalia, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Thomas, J., joined. Osborn v. HaleySearch
-
Opinion of the Court Osborn V. HaleySearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 05-593 Pat Osborn, Petitioner V. BarrySearch
-
d)(2). In Gutierrez de Martinez v. LamagnoSearch
-
Wood v. UnitedSearch
-
States , 995 F. 2d 1122, 1124 (CA1 1993) (en banc). Compare ibid . and McHugh v. UniversitySearch
-
CA2 1992) (prohibiting incident-denying certifications), with Heuton v. AndersonSearch
-
Kimbro v. VeltenSearch
-
and Melo v. HaferSearch
-
F. 3d, at 365. On that issue too, the Court of Appeals noted a division among the Circuits. Compare Borneman v. UnitedSearch
-
Garcia v. UnitedSearch
-
and Aliota v. GrahamSearch
-
d)(2)), with Haddon v. UnitedSearch
-
and Nasuti v. ScannellSearch
-
p. 4 (1988). Under the collateral order doctrine of Cohen v. BeneficialSearch
-
s disposition would be effectively unreviewable later in the litigation. 337 U. S., at 546. See Mitchell v. ForsythSearch
-
against the immune official). As cogently explained by the Fifth Circuit in Mitchell v. CarlsonSearch
-
denying Westfall Act certification and substitution are amenable to immediate review under Cohen . See Woodruff v. CovingtonSearch
-
Mathis v. HendersonSearch
-
Lyons v. BrownSearch
-
Taboas v. MlynczakSearch
-
Coleman v. UnitedSearch
-
Flohr v. MackovjakSearch
-
Pelletier v. FederalSearch
-
In Thermtron Products, Inc. v. HermansdorferSearch
-
Id ., at 351. See also Quackenbush v. AllstateSearch
-
Co. , 517 U. S. 706 (1996) (holding abstention-based remand order immediately appealable). But see Gravitt v. SouthwesternSearch
-
d), and with our precedent. See, e.g., Things Remembered, Inc. v. PetrarcaSearch
-
District Court would have discretion, consistent with Article III, to retain jurisdiction. See Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. CohillSearch
-
cf. Mine Workers v. GibbsSearch
-
Morgan v. WillinghamSearch
-
to a jury trial in suits at common law, we have held, does not apply to proceedings against the sovereign. Lehman v. NakshianSearch
-
the Court has several times instructed, should be decided at the earliest opportunity. See, e.g. , Hunter v. BryantSearch
-
Footnote 9 As explained by the Third Circuit in Melo v. HaferSearch
-
cf. Gutierrez de Martinez v. LamagnoSearch
-
Footnote 10 In an opinion resembling his majority opinion in Wood v. UnitedSearch
-
F. 2d, at 1136, and n. 7 (joint opinion of Coffin, Selya, and Boudin, JJ., dissenting). Accord Kimbro v. VeltenSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial