green
Positive treatment
5.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 1967 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1967
1996
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ingram v. McMahill
Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 17 547 (1967); Wyatt v. Cole, 504 U.S. 158, 165 (1992); Turner, 759 F.Supp. at 633-34 (stating “[i]t 18 has long been established that a police officer who arrests with probable cause is immune from 19 suit in a civil rights action”).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Union Carbide Corporation v. The Dow Chemical Company
Graham v. John Deere Co., 386 U.S. at 17, 86 S.Ct. at 693-694 .
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Wells
See Chapman v. California, 386 US 17 , 87 S Ct 824 , 18 L Ed 2d 705 (1967). *621 We turn next to the question of the suppression of the description of defendant’s performance of the physical tests at the scene.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Simmons v. Koh
Ct., 828 F.2d 1385, 1394 (9th 16 Cir. 1987) (applying judicial immunity to actions under Bivens ); see also Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 17 547, 553-54 (1967) (“Few doctrines were more solidly established at common law than the 18 immunity of judges from liability for damages for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction, 19 as this Court recognized when it adopted the doctrine, in Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335 , 20 L.Ed. 20 646 (1872).”); see also In re Castillo, 297 F.3d 940 , 951 (9th Cir. 2002) (concluding that “the 21 judicial function of managing” a docket “is unquestiona…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Kaye
v.
Co-Ordinating Committee on Discipline of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York
v.
Co-Ordinating Committee on Discipline of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York
300.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 13, 1967.
Morton Lif tin for petitioner., Angelo T. Cometa for respondent.
White, Clark, Harlan, Stewart, Klein, Jersey.
Cited by 11 opinions | Published
Lead Opinion
Per Curiam.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Judicial Department, for reconsideration in light of Spevack v. Klein, 385 U. S. 511.
Mr. Justice Clark, Mr. Justice Harlan, and Mr. Justice Stewart would affirm the judgment below for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinions of Mr. Justice Harlan in Spevack v. Klein, 385 U. S., at 520, and Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U. S. 493, 500.Dissent
Mr. Justice White
dissents for the. reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Garrity v. New Jersey, and Spevack v. Klein, 385 U. S., at 530.