green
Positive treatment
13.5 score
Treatment trajectory · 1984 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1984
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 29 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Todd v. Weltman, Weinberg
See Grant v. Hollenbach, 870 F.2d 1135, 1139 (6th Cir. 1989) (citing Macko v. Byron, 760 F.2d 95, 97 (6th Cir. 1985)); see also Lyles v. Sparks, 79 F.3d 372, 378 (4th Cir. 1996); Frazier v. Bailey, 957 F.2d 920 , 931 n.12 (1st Cir. 1992); Anthony v. Baker, 955 F.2d 1395, 1400-01 (10th Cir. 1992); Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 684 (9th Cir. 1989); Strength v. Hubert, 854 F.2d 421, 423 (11th Cir. 1988), overruled on other grounds by Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266 (1994); San Filippo v. U.S. Trust Co., Inc., 737 F.2d 246 , 254 (2d Cir. 1984); Kincaid v. Eberle, 712 F.2d 1023, 1023-24…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Robert Todd v. Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A., Mark N. Wiseman
See Grant v. Hollenbach, 870 F.2d 1135, 1139 (6th Cir.1989) (citing Macko v. Byron, 760 F.2d 95, 97 (6th Cir.1985)); see also Lyles v. Sparks, 79 F.3d 372, 378 (4th Cir.1996); Frazier v. Bailey, 957 F.2d 920 , 931 n. 12 (1st Cir.1992); Anthony v. Baker, 955 F.2d 1395, 1400-01 (10th Cir.1992); Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 684 (9th Cir.1989); Strength v. Hubert, 854 F.2d 421, 423 (11th Cir.1988), overruled on other grounds by Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266 , 114 S.Ct. 807 , 127 L.Ed.2d 114 (1994); San Filippo v. U.S. Trust Co., Inc., 737 F.2d 246 , 254 (2d Cir.1984); Kincaid v. Ebe…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Palma v. Atlantic County
See id. (citing Macko v. Byron, 760 F.2d 95, 97 (6th Cir.1985); San Filippo v. United *764 States Trust Co., 737 F.2d 246 , 254 (2d Cir.1984); Kincaid v. Eberle, 712 F.2d 1023 (7th Cir.1983); Briggs v. Goodwin, 712 F.2d 1444, 1448-49 (D.C.Cir.1983)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wagner v. Board of County Commissioners of Rio Blanco County
See, e.g., Lyles v. Sparks, 79 F.3d 372, 378 (4th Cir.1996) (extending absolute immunity to witnesses who testify before grand jury); Grant v. Hollenbach, 870 F.2d 1135, 1139 (6th Cir.1989) (holding that grand jury witnesses are absolutely immune from civil liability for their grand jury testimony); Kincaid v. Eberle, 712 F.2d 1023, 1024 (7th Cir.1983) (stating that argument for absolute immunity is stronger in grand jury setting than in trial setting because false testimony before grand jury is less harmful than false testimony at trial); Anthony v. Baker, 955 F.2d 1395, 1400 (10th Cir.1992) …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lyles v. Sparks
See San Filippo v. U.S. Trust Co., 737 F.2d 246 , 254 (2d Cir.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1035 , 105 S.Ct. 1408 , 84 L.Ed.2d 797 (1985); Macko v. Byron, 760 F.2d 95, 97 (6th Cir.1985) (per curiam); Kincaid v. Eberle, 712 F.2d 1023, 1023-24 (7th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1018 , 104 S.Ct. 551 , 78 L.Ed.2d 725 (1983); Anthony v. Baker, 955 F.2d 1395, 1400-01 (10th Cir.1992); Strength v. Hubert, 854 F.2d 421, 423-25 (11th Cir.1988) (per curiam); cf. Williams v. Hepting, 844 F.2d 138, 141-43 (3d Cir.) (immunizing testimony given in adversarial pretrial proceeding), cert. denied, …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lyles v. US Postal Service
See San Filippo v. U.S. Trust Co., 737 F.2d 246 , 254 (2d Cir.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1035 , 105 S.Ct. 1408 , 84 L.Ed.2d 797 (1985); Macko v. Byron, 760 F.2d 95, 97 (6th Cir.1985) (per curiam); Kincaid v. Eberle, 712 F.2d 1023, 1023-24 (7th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1018 , 104 S.Ct. 551 , 78 L.Ed.2d 725 (1983); Anthony v. Baker, 955 F.2d 1395, 1400-01 (10th Cir.1992); Strength v. Hubert, 854 F.2d 421, 423-25 (11th Cir.1988) (per curiam); cf. Williams v. Hepting, 844 F.2d 138, 141-43 (3d Cir.) (immunizing testimony given in adversarial pretrial proceeding), cert. denied, …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rhodes v. Smithers
Kelly v. Curtis, 21 F.3d 1544, 1553 (11th Cir.1994) (citing Strength v. Hubert, 854 F.2d 421, 424-25 (11th Cir.1988) (police officer testifying before grand jury has absolute immunity from § 1983 malicious prosecution suit)); Alioto v. City of Shively, Ky., 835 F.2d 1173, 1174 (6th Cir.1987) (all witnesses, including police officers, have absolute immunity from § 1983 suit based on false grand jury testimony); Kompare v. Stein, 801 F.2d 883 (7th Cir.1986) (all witnesses have absolute immunity from § 1983 suit based on testimony before a grand jury); San Filippo v. U.S. Trust Co. of N.Y., In…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Randall Curtis v. Brian Bembenek
See Moore v. McDonald, 30 F.3d 616, 619-20 (5th Cir. 1994) (deputy sheriffs testimony in criminal defendant’s pretrial suppression hearing absolutely immune); Strength v. Hubert, 854 F.2d 421, 423-25 (11th Cir.1988) (investigator for state attorney general’s office entitled to absolute immunity regarding grand jury testimony); Daloia v. Rose, 849 F.2d 74, 75-76 (2d Cir.) (FBI agents and police officer entitled to absolute immunity for testimony at pretrial suppression hearing), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 898 , 109 S.Ct. 242 , 102 L.Ed.2d 231 (1988); Williams v. Hepting, 844 F.2d 138, 142-43 (3…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Burton D. Linne v. James T. Rideoutte
See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430-31 (1976) (prosecutorial immunity); Gray v. Bell, 712 F.2d 490, 498-506 (D.C.Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1100 (1984) (same); Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) (witness immunity); Briggs v. Goodwin, 712 F.2d 1444, 1448-49 (D.C.Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1040 (1984) (same).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Giannini v. City of New York
See Macho v. Byron, 760 F.2d 95, 97 (6th Cir.1985) (per curiam); Kincaid v. Eberle, 712 F.2d 1023, 1023-24 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1018 , 104 S.Ct. 551 , 78 L.Ed.2d 725 (1983); Briggs v. Goodwin, 712 F.2d 1444, 1449 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1040 , 104 S.Ct. 704 , 79 L.Ed.2d 169 (1983). 6 For this reason, plaintiff’s claims of conspiracy and false testimony must be dismissed against all defendants, including defendant Cuilla, even if it would have been proper to allow those claims to relate back to the original complaint.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Williams v. Hepting
In Briggs v. Goodwin, 712 F.2d 1444 , 1448-49 (D.C.Cir.1983), the court held that a United States Attorney enjoyed absolute immunity for testimony given during grand jury proceedings. "[T]he rationale of Briscoe applies with equal force whenever a witness testifies in a judicial proceeding the function of which is to ascertain factual information." Id. at 1449.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Williams v. Hepting
In Briggs v. Goodwin, 712 F.2d 1444, 1448-49 (D.C.Cir.1983), the court held that a United States Attorney enjoyed absolute immunity for testimony given during grand jury proceedings. “[T]he rationale of Briscoe applies with equal force whenever a witness testifies in a judicial proceeding the function of which is to ascertain factual information.” Id. at 1449.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
White v. Frank
(2×)
Briggs v. Goodwin, 712 F.2d 1444, 1449 (D.C.Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1040 , 104 S.Ct. 704 , 79 L.Ed.2d 169 (1984).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kenneth W. Martin v. John P. Malhoyt, John Doe(s) Shirley Ann Stevens v. David H. Stover, John Doe
(2×)
Briggs v. Goodwin, 712 F.2d 1444, 1448-49 (D.C.Cir.1983).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Strength v. Hubert
Briggs v. Goodwin, 712 F.2d 1444, 1448-49 (D.C.Cir.1983) (emphasis added) (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited "see"
Shillinger v. Haworth
See Briggs v. Goodwin, 698 F.2d 486 , 493 n. 22 (D.C.Cir.) (noting that "[a] deliberate attempt by the government to obtain defense strategy information or to otherwise interfere with the attorney-defendant relationship through the use of an undercover agent may constitute a per se violation of the Sixth Amendment"), reh'g granted, opinion vacated, and on reh'g, 712 F.2d 1444 (D.C.Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1040 , 104 S.Ct. 704 , 79 L.Ed.2d 169 (1984); United States v. Morales, 635 F.2d 177, 179 (2d Cir.1980) ("[B]ecause the ... evidence ... does not disclose an intentional, governmenta…
discussed
Cited "see"
Shillinger v. Haworth
See Briggs v. Goodwin, 698 F.2d 486 , 493 n. 22 (D.C.Cir.) (noting that “[a] deliberate attempt by the government to obtain defense strategy information or to otherwise interfere with the attorney-defendant relationship through the use of an undercover agent may constitute a per se violation of the Sixth Amendment”), reh’g granted, opinion vacated, and on reh’g, 712 F.2d 1444 (D.C.Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1040 , 104 S.Ct. 704 , 79 L.Ed.2d 169 (1984); United States v. Morales, 635 F.2d 177, 179 (2d Cir.1980) (“[Bjecause the ... evidence ... does not disclose an intentional, g…
discussed
Cited "see"
Reid v. New Hampshire
See Briggs v. Goodwin, 712 F.2d 1444 (D.C.Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1040 , 104 S.Ct. 704 , 79 L.Ed.2d 169 (1984) (prosecutor who gives peijured testimony is entitled to absolute immunity under Briscoe but not Imbler). 12 .
cited
Cited "see"
Haworth v. Shillinger
See Briggs v. Goodwin, 698 F.2d 486 (D.C.Cir.), vacated on other grounds, 712 F.2d 1444 (D.C.Cir. 1983).
cited
Cited "see"
Aclu Foundation of Southern California v. William P. Barr
See Briggs v. Goodwin, 698 F.2d 486 (D.C.Cir.), vacated on other grounds, 712 F.2d 1444 (D.C.Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1040 , 104 S.Ct. 704 , 79 L.Ed.2d 169 (1984).
cited
Cited "see"
Monrose v. B & O Enterprises, Inc.
See, Williams, 844 F2d at 142, citing Briggs v. Goodwin, 712 F.2d, 1444, 1448-1449 (D.C.
cited
Cited "see"
Behre v. Thomas
See Briggs v. Goodwin, 712 F.2d 1444, 1448-49 (D.C.Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1040 , 104 S.Ct. 704 , 79 L.Ed.2d 169 (1984).
cited
Cited "see"
Mrs. Susie Lite Morrison v. City of Baton Rouge
See Briggs v. Goodwin, 712 F.2d 1444 (D.C.Cir.1983), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 704 , 79 L.Ed.2d 169 (1984). 5 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Murphy v. State
(2×)
Compare Briggs v. Goodwin, 698 F.2d 486, 494-95 (D.C.Cir.)(stating that possession by government of confidential information is presumed detrimental to defendant), vacated on other grounds, 712 F.2d 1444 (1983); United States v. Levy, 577 F.2d 200, 210 (3rd Cir.1978)(holding prejudice need not be shown) with United States v. Dien, 609 F.2d 1038, 1043 (2nd Cir.1979)(holding defendants failed to show prejudice); United States v. Davis, 226 F.3d 346, 353 (5th Cir.2000)(holding show ing of prejudice required), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1181 , 121 S.Ct. 1161 , 148 L.Ed.2d 1021 (2001); United States v.…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
McQueen v. United States
See also Briggs v. Goodwin, 712 F.2d 1444 , 1449 n. 33 (D.C.Cir.1983) (“The Supreme Court has noted ... that ‘it would be untenable to draw a distinction for purposes of immunity law between suits brought against state officials under § 1983 and suits brought directly under the Constitution against federal officials.’ ”) (citing Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 , 98 S.Ct. 2894, 2909 , 57 L.Ed.2d 895 (1978)).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Polk v. District of Columbia
On a motion for summary judgment, Harlow 's interpretation of the qualified immunity issue does not "alter the burden that Rule 59(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure places on the movant to demonstrate, as a condition of summary judgment, that the objective inquiry raises 'no genuine issue as to any material fact....’ ” See Martin v. Malhoyt, 830 F.2d 237, 256 (D.C.Cir.), reh. denied, 833 F.2d 1049 (D.C.Cir.1987) (quoting Halperin v. Kissinger, 807 F.2d 180, 188-89 (D.C.Cir.1986) (Scalia, J., sitting by designation)); see also Briggs v. Goodwin, 698 F.2d 486 , 489 n. 2 (D.C.Cir.) (…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Profitt v. District of Columbia
When ruling on a motion for summary judgment, Harlow's interpretation of the qualified immunity issue does not "alter the burden that Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure places on the movant to demonstrate, as a condition of summary judgment, that the objective inquiry raises ‘no genuine issue as to any material fact....’ ” Martin v. Malhoyt, 830 F.2d 237, 256 (D.C.Cir.1987), reh. denied, 833 F.2d 1049 (D.C.Cir.1987), quoting Halperin v. Kissinger, 807 F.2d 180, 188-89 (D.C.Cir.1986); see also Briggs v. Goodwin, 698 F.2d 486 , 492 n. 2 (D.C.Cir.1983) (the "rules governing …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Attorney General of the United States v. Irish People, Inc.
See, e.g., Briggs v. Goodwin, 698 F.2d 486, 491 , vacated on another issue on reh’g, 712 F.2d 1444 (D.C.Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1040 , 104 S.Ct. 704 , 79 L.Ed.2d 169 (1984); Patrick v. LeFevre, 745 F.2d 153, 159 (2d Cir.1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Boeck
(2×)
See also, e.g., Briggs v. Goodwin, 698 F.2d 486, 492 , rehearing granted and opinion vacated 712 F.2d 1444 (D.C.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
John BRIGGS, Et Al., Appellants,
v.
Guy GOODWIN, Et Al
v.
Guy GOODWIN, Et Al
80-2269.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Jul 8, 1983.
Ginsburg, Bazelon, MacKinnon.
Published
.ORDER
PER CURIAM.Upon consideration of the petition for rehearing filed herein, and this Court having entered a judgment on January 11, 1983, 698 F.2d 486, reversing the decision of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for the reasons set forth in an opinion for the Court filed that same day, and this Court being of the view that its earlier disposition should be set aside, it is
ORDERED, by this Court, that appellee’s petition for rehearing is granted and this Court’s judgment and opinion filed herein on January 11,1983 are hereby vacated, for the reasons set forth in an opinion for the Court filed this date.