Citation network
Barr Vs. Matteo
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 29, 1959
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. 564 (1959) U.S. Supreme Court Barr v. MatteoSearch
-
U.S. 564 (1959) Barr v. MatteoSearch
-
judicial functions, irrespective of the motives with which those acts are alleged to have been performed, Bradley v. FisherSearch
-
that a like immunity extends to other officers of government whose duties are related to the judicial process. Yaselli v. GoffSearch
-
U. S. 570 branches of the Government and executive officers of the kind involved in Yaselli. In Spalding v. VilasSearch
-
Gregoire v. BiddleSearch
-
challenged this determination in the Court of Claims, which held that the plan was not in violation of law. Madigan v. UnitedSearch
-
See Kilbourn v. ThompsonSearch
-
Cooper v. O'ConnorSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Brown v. ShimabukuroSearch
-
The communication in Spalding v. VilasSearch
-
contents and the occasion for their issuance relate to the duties and functions of the particular department. Mellon v. BrewerSearch
-
Glass v. IckesSearch
-
As to suits for defamation see, e.g., Taylor v. GlotfeltySearch
-
Smith v. O'BrienSearch
-
Farr v. ValentineSearch
-
of Parravicino v. BrunswickSearch
-
Carson v. BehlenSearch
-
Tinkofl v. CampbellSearch
-
Miles v. McGrathSearch
-
F.Supp. 603. See also, as to other torts, Jones v. KennedySearch
-
Adams v. HomeSearch
-
De Busk v. HarvinSearch
-
Lang v. WoodSearch
-
See the striking description in Cummings and McFarland, Federal Justice (1937), pp. 80-81, quoted in Cooper v. O'ConnorSearch
-
but instead related more or less to general matters committed by law to his control and supervision. See Spalding v. VilasSearch
-
This case concerns District of Columbia law. In a companion case, Howard v. LyonsSearch
-
for certain classes of government officials, or indeed for the entire executive, by broadly extending Spalding v. VilasSearch
-
English case presenting the problem of immunity outside the legislative and judicial branches of government is Sutton v. JohnstoneSearch
-
In Chatterton v. SecretarySearch
-
executive privilege in England. Such was the state of English law when, the next year, this Court decided Spalding v. VilasSearch
-
according to his duty, he makes internal reports to his superior or to another upon his superior's order. Cf. Taylor v. GlotfeltySearch
-
Farr v. ValeltineSearch
-
DeArnaud v. AinsworthSearch
-
uttered in an internal report, it will be recognized as such and discredited without further dissemination. Spalding v. VilasSearch
-
to the President of the United States for the operation of one of the major departments of government. Cf. Glass v. IckesSearch
-
Mellon v. BrewerSearch
-
and directly responsible, suggest that the absolute protection partakes of presidential immunity. Perhaps the Spalding v. VilasSearch
-
not contended that petitioner was under any order to issue a statement in this matter. I would not extend Spalding v. VilasSearch
-
the interest of the individual in obtaining redress for the public defamation uttered against him. Cf. Colpoys v. GatesSearch
-
involved here. But, as so often happens in balancing cases, the wrong interests are being balanced. Cf. Barenblatt v. UnitedSearch
-
may libel him with immunity in the name of defending the agency and their own position. This extension of Spalding v. VilasSearch
-
Legislative and Executive Proceedings, 10 Col.L.Rev. 131, 132. See also Tenney v. BrandhoveSearch
-
See Tenney v. BrandhoveSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial