green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
12.5 score
“hilliard ii”
Treatment trajectory · 1976 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1976
2001
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 18 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Flynn v. Papst
“This immunity covers the knowing use of false testimony at trial, the suppression of exculpatory evidence, and malicious prosecution.” Milstein v. Cooley, 257 F.3d 1004, 1008 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Imbler, 424 U.S. at 416 ); see also Genzler v. Longanbach, 410 F.3d 630, 637 (9th Cir. 2005) (noting that “prosecutor enjoys absolute immunity from a suit alleging that he maliciously initiated a prosecution, used perjured testimony at trial, or suppressed material evidence at trial,” among other things); Reid v. New Hampshire, 56 F.3d 332, 336 (1st Cir. 1995) (a prosecutor cannot be held …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Broam v. Bogan
An act or an omission concerning such a duty cannot be construed as only administrative or investigative; it too is necessarily related to [the prosecutor's] preparation to prosecute.") (citation omitted); Fullman v. Graddick, 739 F.2d 553, 559 (11th Cir. 1984) (holding that "[t]he district court properly dismissed plaintiff's claims that [the prosecutor] conspired to withhold evidence and to create and proffer perjured testimony"); Prince v. Wallace, 568 F.2d 1176, 1178-79 (5th Cir.1978) (per curiam) (extending absolute immunity to a prosecutor's actions in "initiating and pursuing a criminal…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Broam v. Bogan
An act or an omission concerning such a duty cannot be construed as only administrative or investigative; it too is necessarily related to [the prosecutor’s] preparation to prosecute.”) (citation omitted); Fullman v. Graddick, 739 F.2d 553, 559 (11th Cir.1984) (holding that “[t]he district court properly dismissed plaintiffs claims that [the prosecutor] conspired to withhold evidence and to create and proffer perjured testimony”); Prince v. Wallace, 568 F.2d 1176, 1178-79 (5th Cir.1978) (per curiam) (extending absolute immunity to a prosecutor’s actions in “initiating and pursuing …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Reid v. State of NH
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Perez- ______ Ruiz v. Crespo-Guillen, 25 F.3d 40, 42 (1st Cir. 1994); Smith v. ____ ______________ _____ Massachusetts Dep't. of Correction, 936 F.2d 1390, 1402 (1st Cir. __________________________________ 1991); Torres v. Superintendent of Police, 893 F.2d 404, 410 (1st ______ ________________________ Cir. 1990). -10- 10 son v. Volkswagenwerk AG, 940 F.2d 1369 , 1372-73 (10th Cir. ___ _________________ 1991) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1091 (1992); _____ ______ Myers v. Morris, 810 F.2d 1437, 1446 (8th Cir.), cert. de- _____ ______ _____ ___ nied, 484 U.S. 828 (1987).9 See Camp…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Reid v. New Hampshire
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
The complaint therefore failed to state an actionable false arrest claim. 8 Second, under Imbler “it is ‘now [a] well-settled rule that a prosecutor cannot be held personally liable for the knowing suppression of exculpatory information.’ ” Robinson v. Volkswagenwerk AG, 940 F.2d 1369, 1372-73 (10th Cir.1991) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1091 , 112 S.Ct. 1160 , 117 L.Ed.2d 408 (1992); Myers v. Morris, 810 F.2d 1437, 1446 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 828 (1987). 9 See Campbell v. Maine, 787 F.2d 776, 777 (1st Cir.1986) (per curiam); Hilliard v. Williams, 540 F.2d 220…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Harry Robinson and Kay Robinson, Eva May McCarthy and George Samuel Robinson v. Volkswagenwerk Ag, Greer & Greer, and Herzfeld & Rubin, P.C.
See, e.g., Heidelberg v. Hammer, 577 F.2d 429, 432 (7th Cir.1978); Hilliard v. Williams, 540 F.2d 220, 221 (6th Cir.1976).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Robinson v. Volkswagenwerk AG
See, e.g., Heidelberg v. Hammer, 577 F.2d 429, 432 (7th Cir.1978); Hilliard v. Williams, 540 F.2d 220, 221 (6th Cir.1976).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Carter v. Harrison
Hilliard v. Williams, 540 F.2d 220, 221-22 (6th Cir.1976). 8 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Martinez v. Winner
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Hilliard v. Williams, 540 F.2d 220, 221 (6th Cir. 1976).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Urdiales v. Canales
Hilliard v. Williams, 540 F.2d 220, 221 (6th Cir. 1976); See Kauffman v. Moss, 420 F.2d 1270 , 1272 n.3 (3d Cir. 1970).
discussed
Cited "see"
Edward Campbell v. State of Maine
See Hilliard v. Williams, 540 F.2d 220, 221 (6th Cir.1976) (prosecutor immune despite withholding exculpatory FBI report); cf. Martinez v. Winner, 771 F.2d 424, 438 (10th Cir.1985) (immunity covers nondisclosure connected to presentation of government’s ease and to judicial process, but not action taken to cover up wrongs in order to avoid personal liability in subsequent noncriminal proceeding).
discussed
Cited "see"
Overman v. Klein
(2×)
See Hilliard v. Williams, 516 F.2d 1344, 1349 (6th Cir.1975), vacated on other grounds, 424 U.S. 961 , 96 S.Ct. 1453 , 47 L.Ed.2d 729 (1976), affirmed after remand, 540 F.2d 220 (6th Cir.1976) (police officer liable under § 1983 for falsely testifying in a criminal trial).” 665 F.2d at 669 (quoting Briscoe v. LaHue, 663 F.2d 713, 719 (1981) (emphasis added).
discussed
Cited "see"
Earl Charles v. F. W. Wade, Leo B. Ryan and City of Savannah, Georgia
(2×)
See Hilliard v. Williams, 516 F.2d 1344, 1349 (6th Cir. 1975), vacated on other grounds, 424 U.S. 961 , 96 S.Ct. 1453 , 47 L.Ed.2d 729 (1976), affirmed after remand, 540 F.2d 220 (6th Cir. 1976) (police officer liable under § 1983 for falsely testifying in a criminal trial).
discussed
Cited "see"
Herman K. Burke v. Jerry Miller, M.D.
(2×)
See Hilliard v. Williams, 516 F.2d 1344, 1349 (6 Cir. 1975), vacated on other grounds, 424 U.S. 961 , 96 S.Ct. 1453 , 41 L.Ed.2d 729 (1976), affirmed, 540 F.2d 220 (6 Cir. 1976) (police officer held liable under § 1983 for giving misleading testimony in homicide trial).
discussed
Cited "see"
Wolf v. Carey
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Hilliard v. Williams, supra, where the Sixth Circuit directed the District Court to dismiss a section 1983 civil rights action, despite reversal of plaintiff’s conviction on appeal.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lopez v. Ruhl
See also Hilliard v. Williams, 516 F.2d 1344 (CA 6 1975), vacated 424 U.S. 961 , 96 S.Ct. 1453 , 47 L.Ed.2d 729 (1976), on remand 540 F.2d 220 (CA 6 1976) (State investigative agent’s misleading testimony and failure to disclose exculpatory evidence at trial held to be violation of due process where it caused plaintiff’s conviction). 4 Again, factual questions concerning the existence of probable cause and the extent of Ruhl’s disclosures to the prosecuting attorney, Court, and Lopez, preclude summary judgment. 5 Other Claims Defendants argue that, apart from any considerations of whethe…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Dick v. Watonwan County
Lee v. Willins, 617 F.2d 320, 322 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 861 , 101 S.Ct. 165 , 66 L.Ed.2d 78 (1980); see also Hilliard v. Williams, 540 F.2d 220, 221-22 (6th Cir.1976) (per curiam).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Lilly Mae Onie Lee Whitelaw HILLIARD, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
John L. WILLIAMS Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
v.
John L. WILLIAMS Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
74-1356 to 74-1358.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Aug 2, 1976.
Dwayne D. Maddox, Huntingdon, Tenn., Julian P. Guinn, Paris, Tenn., for plaintiff-appellant., Franklin Murchison, David R. Farmer, Roy Hall, Waldrop, Hall, Tomlin & Farmer, Jackson, Tenn., for defendants-appellees.
Phillips, Edwards, Peck.
Cited by 27 opinions | Published
Citer courts: E.D. Michigan (1)
PER CURIAM.
In an opinion published at 516 F.2d 1344 (6th Cir. 1975), this court reversed the decision of the District Court and remanded this case to the District Court for further proceedings. We said:
The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in Imbler v. Pachtman, 500 F.2d 1301 (9th Cir. 1974), cert, granted, 420 U.S. 945, 95 S.Ct. 1324, 4 L.Ed.2d 423 (1975). It is suggested that the District Court postpone further proceedings in the present case until after the Supreme Court has announced its decision in Imbler.
Both John L. Williams, District Attorney General, and Donn Clark, agent for the Tennessee Bureau of Criminal Investigation, filed petitions for certiorari. The Supreme Court denied the petition of Clark. Hilliard v. Clark, 423 U.S. 1066, 96 S.Ct. 805, 46 L.Ed.2d 656 (1976). .
Under date of March 22,1976, 424 U.S. 961, 96 S.Ct. 1453, 47 L.Ed.2d 729, the Supreme Court granted the petition of Williams, vacated the decision of this court as to him, and remanded the case to this court for further consideration in the light of Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976).
On May 6, 1976, this court invited the attorneys for the parties to submit supplemental briefs. These briefs have been filed and considered. The attorneys for Hilliard undertake to distinguish this case from Imbler. We do not perceive any such distinction.
It is to be emphasized that, as reflected in our opinions reported at 465 F.2d 1212 (6th Cir. 1972) and 516 F.2d 1344 (6th Cir. 1975), this court strongly condemns the actions of District Attorney General Williams revealed by the record in this case. In the latter opinion we said:
Whether guilty or innocent, Mrs. Hilliard had a due process right to a fair trial. Defendant Williams withheld an F.B.I. report indicating that there was no blood on Mrs. Hilliard’s jacket. Moreover, Williams failed to prevent or to correct deceptive and misleading testimony given by defendant Clark from which the jury could have concluded that the jacket was stained with the victim’s blood. Further, it appears that Williams actually instructed Clark to testify at least evasively, if not falsely. We believe that by these acts and omissions defendant Williams deprived Mrs. Hilliard of her constitutional right to a fair trial.
Nevertheless, we conclude that under the decision in Imbler, Williams as a prosecuting attorney is not liable in damages to appellant Hilliard in this action filed under[*222] 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Accordingly, the judgment of this court is vacated as to John L. Williams and the case is remanded to the District Court with directions to dismiss the action as to him.
The judgment of this court as to Donn Clark will remain in full force and effect.
No costs are assessed. Each party will bear his own costs in this court.