defendant entitled to dismissal on qualified immunity plea unless plaintiff states a claim of violation of clearly established law
How later courts described this case
- defendant entitled to dismissal on qualified immunity plea unless plaintiff states a claim of violation of clearly established law
- “predicate acts” for section 1962’s first three subsections include only “racketeering activity” as described in section 1961(1)
- absolute immunity is not "a mere defense to liability"; its "essence" is "its possessor's entitlement not to have to ... stand trial or face the other burdens of litigation "
- "Harlow ... purged qualified immunity doctrine of its subjective components"
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Reported abrogated in part, on other grounds by Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163 (1993) — not on the Supreme Court's list
” Hobson v. Wilson, 737 F.2d 1, 35 (D.C. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, Brennan v. Hobson, 470 U.S. 1084, 105 S.Ct. 1843, 85 L.Ed.2d 142 (1985), abrogated in part on other grounds, Leatherman v. Tarrant County, 507 U.S. 163, 113 S.Ct. 1160, 122 L.Ed.2d 517 (1993).
The opinion
This record has no opinion text. It is a disposition such as a denial of certiorari, kept so the case can be found by name and citation.