Burl Mullins v. Harvey Oakley, 437 F.2d 1217 (4th Cir. 1971). · Go Syfert
Search
Burl Mullins v. Harvey Oakley, 437 F.2d 1217 (4th Cir. 1971). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
23 citation events (13 in the last 25 years) across 13 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Allen v. Allen (nced, 2025-03-31)
Treatment trajectory · 1972 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1972 1999 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Allen v. Allen
E.D.N.C. · 2025 · confidence medium
It is firmly settled law that “a judge may not be attacked for exercising his judicial authority, even if done improperly.” Mullins v. Oakley, 437 F.2d 1217, 1218 (4th Cir. 1971).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Allen v. Allen
E.D.N.C. · 2025 · confidence medium
It is firmly settled law that “a judge may not be attacked for exercising his judicial authority, even if done improperly.” Mullins v. Oakley, 437 F.2d 1217, 1218 (4th Cir. 1971).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Macedon v. Castle
E.D.N.C. · 2025 · confidence medium
It is firmly settled law that “a judge may not be attacked for exercising his judicial authority, even if done improperly.” Mullins v. Oakley, 437 F.2d 1217, 1218 (4th Cir. 1971).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Melvin v. The Honorable Judge Dawn Layton
E.D.N.C. · 2024 · confidence medium
It is firmly settledl law that “a judge may not be attacked for exercising his judicial authority, even if done improperly.” Mullins v. Oakley, 437 F.2d 1217, 1218 (4th Cir. 1971).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jackson v. Bachman
S.D. Ohio · 2021 · confidence medium
However, he took the actions in question to protect the “sanctity and dignity” of courtroom proceedings, a judicial act “shielded by absolute immunity.” Triplett v. Connor, 109 F. App’x 94, 96 (6th Cir. 2004); Mullins v. Oakley, 437 F.2d 1217, 1218 (4th Cir. 1971).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jackson v. Bachman
S.D. Ohio · 2021 · confidence medium
The Sixth Circuit concluded that while the defendant judge “may have been better advised to enlist the aid of a deputy, it has been long-established that it is a judge’s ‘obligation . . . to protect the sanctity and dignity of . . . courtroom proceedings. . . .’” Id. at 96 (quoting Gregory v. Thompson, 500 F.2d 59, 64 (9th Cir. 1974) (quoting Mullins v. Oakley, 437 F.2d 1217, 1218 (4th Cir. 1971)) (internal quotation marks omitted)).6 5F 6 The Ninth Circuit’s broader holding in Gregory, in fact, supports plaintiff’s position.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Zenon v. Guzman
D. Mass. · 2018 · confidence medium
“The law has been settled for centuries that a judge may not be attacked for exercising his judicial authority, even if done improperly.” Mullins v. Oakley, 437 F.2d 1217, 1218 (4th Cir. 1971).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Darling v. Falls
M.D.N.C. · 2017 · confidence medium
Mullins v. Oakley, 437 F.2d 1217, 1218 (4th Cir. 1971).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Triplett v. Connor
6th Cir. · 2004 · confidence medium
Even though Judge Connor may have been better advised to enlist the aid of a deputy, it has been long-established that it is a judge’s “obligation ... to ‘protect the sanctity and dignity of ... courtroom proceedings .... ’ Gregory v. Thompson, 500 F.2d 59, 64 (9th Cir.1974) (citing Mullins v. Oakley, 437 F.2d 1217, 1218 (4th Cir.1971)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Douglas Gregory v. John J. Thompson
9th Cir. · 1974 · confidence medium
It is within a judge’s power— indeed, it is his obligation — to “protect the sanctity and dignity of . . courtroom proceedings. . . .” Mullins v. Oakley, 437 F.2d 1217, 1218 (4th Cir. 1971). 5 A judge’s criminal contempt power provides him with the judicial muscle to cope with such situations, and the exercise of that power, clearly judicial in character, falls within the scope of the immunity doctrine.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Eugene Barnes v. Sam Elmer Dorsey
8th Cir. · 1973 · confidence medium
Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554-555 , 87 S.Ct. 1213 , 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967); Mullins v. Oakley, 437 F.2d 1217, 1218 (4th Cir. 1971); Wilhelm v. Turner, 431 F.2d 177 , ISO-181 (8th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U. S. 947 , 91 S.Ct. 919 , 28 L.Ed.2d 230 (1971).
cited Cited "see" McNamara v. Hawks
S.D. Fla. · 1973 · signal: see · confidence high
See Mullins v. Oakley, 437 F.2d 1217 (4th Cir. 1971; Godwin v. Williams, 293 F.Supp. 770 (D.C.Tex.1968).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Burl MULLINS, Appellant,
v.
Harvey OAKLEY, Appellee
14585_1.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Feb 24, 1971.
437 F.2d 1217
Peter W. Hendricks, for appellant. Robert H. Burford, Huntington, W. Va., for appellee.
Haynsworth, Winter, Craven.
Cited by 18 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

The plaintiff brought this suit under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 alleging various actions by the defendant while acting under color of his office as judge of the Seventh Judicial Circuit of the state of West Virginia. The District Court considered affidavits accompanying the pleadings and dismissed the ease on a motion for Summary Judgment made under Rule 56(e). We conclude that the District Court was correct and affirm.

Although there is some dispute as to the actual chain of events, the legal conclusion is unaltered by the choice of any particular view. The incident occurred in the courthouse while court was in session. The plaintiff claims that the defendant sent his bailiff into the courtroom, where the plaintiff was seated, with instructions to forcibly return him[*1218] to the judge’s chambers, and that, upon arrival, the defendant addressed to the plaintiff offensive and slanderous language. The defendant’s affidavits deny both the forceful persuasion by the bailiff and the vile and slanderous nature of discussion. The two parties were alone in the judge’s chambers so there were no other witnesses. There is no doubt, however, that the defendant, as judge in that court, had -been led to believe that juries were being improperly influenced and that the plaintiff was possibly involved. The meeting and alleged slanderous utterances were addressed to this subject. Therefore, even accepting the plaintiff’s version of the facts, the judge was acting within his authority to protect the sanctity and dignity of the courtroom proceedings for which he was responsible.

The law has been settled for centuries that a judge may not be attacked for exercising his judicial authority, even if done improperly. Such an immunity is necessary to prevent intimidation and assure the independence of our judges. This principle was most recently reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 87 S.Ct. 1213, 18 L.Ed.2d 288. Thus, we hold that the District Court was correct in dismissing the action.

Affirmed.