Haig v. Bissonette, 485 U.S. 264 (1988). · Go Syfert
Haig v. Bissonette, 485 U.S. 264 (1988). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 2000 · …search unauthorized by state law would ipso facto violate the fourth amendment. ⚠ not in text
71 citation events (18 in the last 25 years) across 14 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Brown v. Ely (alaska, 2000-12-15)
Treatment trajectory · 1988 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1988 2007 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Brown v. Ely (3×)
Alaska · 2000 · quote attribution · 3 verbatim quotes · confidence low
search unauthorized by state law would ipso facto violate the fourth amendment.
examined Cited "see" Wong v. Minnesota Department of Human Services (4×)
8th Cir. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bissonette v. Haig, 776 F.2d 1384, 1386 (8th Cir. 1985), aff’d, 485 U.S. 264 (1988). -2- in Wong’s county, initially denied Wong benefits but later approved some supplemental aid.
examined Cited "see" UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF—APPELLEE v. FRITZ ARLO LOOKING CLOUD, DEFENDANT—APPELLANT (3×)
8th Cir. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bissonette v. Haig, 776 F.2d 1384, 1385 (8th Cir.1985), cert. granted, 479 U.S. 1083 , 107 S.Ct. 1283 , 94 L.Ed.2d 141 (1987), aff'd for lack of quorum under 28 U.S.C. § 2109 , 485 U.S. 264 , 108 S.Ct. 1253 , 99 L.Ed.2d 288 (1988).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Looking Cloud
8th Cir. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bissonette v. Haig, 776 F.2d 1384, 1385 (8th Cir. 1985), cert. granted, 479 U.S. 1083 (1987), aff'd for lack of quorum under 28 U.S.C. § 2109 , 485 U.S. 264 (1988).
examined Cited "see" United States v. Mohamed Basher Al-Talib, United States of America v. Hector Rivera Munoz (3×)
4th Cir. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bissonette v. Haig, 776 F.2d 1384, 1390 (8th Cir.1985) (distinguishing direct military involvement in investigation from passive support), aff'd, 485 U.S. 264 , 108 S.Ct. 1253 , 99 L.Ed.2d 288 (1988).
examined Cited "see" Wade v. Blasingame (3×)
8th Cir. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bissonette v. Haig, 776 F.2d 1384, 1390 (8th Cir.1985), aff'd on rehearing, 800 F.2d 812 (8th Cir.1986) (en banc), aff'd for absence of quorum, 485 U.S. 264 , 108 S.Ct. 1253 , 99 L.Ed.2d 288 (1988). 4 Our review of the record convinces us the Wades failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact about the officials' knowledge of the fugitive's death.
examined Cited "see" Wade v. Blasingame (3×)
8th Cir. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bissonette v. Haig, 776 F.2d 1384, 1390 (8th Cir.1985), aff'd on rehearing, 800 F.2d 812 (8th Cir.1986) (en banc), aff'd for absence of quorum, 485 U.S. 264 , 108 S.Ct. 1253 , 99 L.Ed.2d 288 (1988).
discussed Cited "see" Ruiz v. Commissioner of the Department of Transportation
S.D.N.Y. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bissonette v. Haig, 800 F.2d 812 (8th Cir.1986) (en banc) (allegation that plaintiffs were arrested by military in violation of Posse Comitatus Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1385 , made out Fourth Amendment claim, because limitations imposed by statute defined accepted notions of reasonableness), aff’d per curiam without a quorum, — U.S. —, 108 S.Ct. 1253 , — L.Ed.2d —, 56 U.S.L.W. 3645 (U.S. March 22, 1988).
examined Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Terry Lee Kummer (6×)
8th Cir. · 1994 · signal: see also · confidence low
We have held, too, that an arrest by a state actor that is not authorized by state law is “a seizure contrary to the Fourth Amendment.” Cole v. Nebraska, 997 F.2d 442 , 444 (8th Cir.1993); see also Bissonette v. Haig, 800 F.2d 812, 816 (8th Cir.1986) (en banc), aff'd, 485 U.S. 264 , 108 S.Ct. 1253 , 99 L.Ed.2d 288 (1988) (per curiam).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
HAIG Et Al.
v.
BISSONETTE Et Al.
86-987.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 21, 1988.
485 U.S. 264
O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy.
Cited by 28 opinions  |  Published
1 passages pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 72%
Citer courts: Alaska Supreme Court (3)
Per Curiam.

Because the Court lacks a quorum, 28 U. S. C. § 1, and since a majority of the qualified Justices are of the opinion that the case cannot be heard and determined at the next Term of the Court, the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is affirmed under 28 U. S. C. § 2109, which provides that under these circumstances the Court shall enter its order affirming the judgment of the court from which the case was brought for review with the same effect as upon affirmance by an equally divided Court.

The Chief Justice, Justice O’Connor, Justice Scalia, and Justice Kennedy took no part in this decision.