Philip D. Myers v. Clyde Harold Bull, 599 F.2d 863 (8th Cir. 1979). · Go Syfert
Search
Philip D. Myers v. Clyde Harold Bull, 599 F.2d 863 (8th Cir. 1979). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“itnesses, including police officers, do not act under color of law when they testify at a judicial proceeding.”
54 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 29 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Titus v. Cobb (ned, 2020-02-03)
Treatment trajectory · 1980 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1980 2003 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 36 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Titus v. Cobb
D. Neb. · 2020 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
itnesses, including police officers, do not act under color of law when they testify at a judicial proceeding.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bailey v. Easley
E.D. Ark. · 2021 · confidence medium
Def., Sixth Judicial Dist. of Arkansas, Pulaski & Perry Ctys., 653 F.2d 1241, 1242 (8th Cir. 1981) (citing Myers v. Bull, 599 F.2d 863, 866 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 901 (1979)) (“Witnesses are absolutely immune from section 1983 remedy actions arising from their testimony in judicial proceedings.”); Broadnicki v. City of Omaha, 75 F.3d, 1261 , 1266 (8th Cir. 1996) (citing Buckle v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (1993)) (determining that prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity when acting as advocates for the state in a criminal prosecution).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Due v. Bataillon
D. Neb. · 2020 · confidence medium
Myers v. Bull, 599 F.2d 863, 866 (8th Cir. 1979) (citing cases where absolute immunity applied to Bivens-type claims).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Stanley v. Katherine Finnegan
W.D. Ark. · 2020 · confidence medium
To the contrary, it was clearly established that ‘witnesses should be immune from civil rights suits alleging perjurious testimony.’”) (quoting Myers v. Bull, 599 F.2d 863, 866 (8th Cir. 1979)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jones v. Slay
E.D. Mo. · 2014 · confidence medium
In support, Carr cites Myers v. Bull, 599 F.2d 863, 866 (8th Cir.1979) (“Absent some showing .that the alleged perjurious deposition had some causal relationship to appellant’s conviction, he has failed to .state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Smalls, Eugene C. v. United States
D.C. Cir. · 2006 · confidence medium
Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 322 F.3d 1064, 1081 (9th Cir.2003); Kratville v. Runyon, 90 F.3d 195, 198 (7th Cir.1996); Nathan, 651 F.2d at 1226 (6th Cir.); Myers v. Bull, 599 F.2d 863, 865 (8th Cir.1979) (per curiam); Mathis v. Laird, 457 F.2d 926, 927 (5th Cir.1972) (per curiam) (citing Williamson v. Columbia Gas & Elec.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Smith v. CSK Auto, Inc.
Alaska · 2006 · confidence medium
Myers v. Bull, 599 F.2d 863, 865 (8th Cir.1979); see Holmberg, 796 P.2d at 829 (pendency of appeal does not deny a judgment its res judicata effects). 10 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Penn v. Iowa State Board of Regents
Iowa · 1998 · confidence medium
Thompson Trucking, Inc. v. Dorsey Trailers, Inc., 870 F.2d 1044, 1046 (5th Cir.1989); Myers v. Bull, 599 F.2d 863, 865 (8th Cir.1979); Nitz v. Nitz, 456 N.W.2d 450, 452 (Minn.Ct.App.1990).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jordan v. Kansas City
Mo. Ct. App. · 1996 · confidence medium
See Andes, 897 S.W.2d at 23 ; Lamb v. Equifax Servs., Inc., 620 F.Supp. 1457, 1458 (E.D.Mo.1985); Myers v. Bull, 599 F.2d 863, 865 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 901 , 100 S.Ct. 213 , 62 L.Ed.2d 138 (1979).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hall v. Burger King Corp.
S.D. Fla. · 1995 · confidence medium
Rose v. Town of Harwich, 778 F.2d 77, 80 (1st Cir.1985) (”[W]e conclude that Massachusetts would treat this particular limitations-based dismissal as one with claim-preclusive effect.”), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1159 , 106 S.Ct. 2278 , 90 L.Ed.2d 720 (1986); PRC Harris, Inc. v. Boeing Co., 700 F.2d 894, 896 (2d Cir.) ("The longstanding rule in this Circuit, however, is that a dismissal for failure to comply with the statute of limitations will operate as an adjudication on the merits...."), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 936 , 104 S.Ct. 344 , 78 L.Ed.2d 311 (1983); Knoll v. Springfield Township Scho…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Henry S. Reinke D/B/A Lakeside Properties v. Robert W. Boden, Richard M. Stark, and John C. Kalenberg
7th Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
Thompson Trucking, Inc. v. Dorsey Trailers, Inc., 880 F.2d 818 , 820 n. 1 (5th Cir.1989); Shoup v. Bell & Howell Co., 872 F.2d 1178, 1180 (4th Cir.1989); PRC Harris, Inc. v. Boeing Co., 700 F.2d 894, 896-97 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 936 , 104 S.Ct. 344 , 78 L.Ed.2d 311 (1983); Cemer v. Marathon Oil Co., 583 F.2d 830, 831-32 (6th Cir.1978) (per curiam); Sack v. Low, 478 F.2d 360, 364 (2d Cir.1973); cf. Nathan v. Rowan, 651 F.2d 1223, 1226 (6th Cir.1981) (noting that a summary judgment on the ground of the running of the statute of limitations is a judgment on the merits); Myers v. Bull,…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mosely v. Cassidy
E.D. Pa. · 1994 · confidence medium
Myers v. Bull, 599 F.2d 863, 865 (8th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 100 S.Ct. 213 , 444 U.S. 901 , 62 L.Ed.2d 138 ; Burke v. Miller, 580 F.2d 108, 109 (4th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 930 , 99 S.Ct. 1268 , 59 L.Ed.2d 487 (1979); Blevins v. Ford, 572 F.2d 1336,1338 (9th Cir.1978); Bennett v. Passic, 545 F.2d 1260, 1263-64 (10th Cir.1976); Brawer v. Horowitz, 535 F.2d 830, 836-37 (3d Cir.1976); Smith v. Sinclair, 424 F.Supp. 1108, 1113 (W.D.Okla.1976); but see Briggs v. Goodwin, 569 F.2d 10, 26 (D.C.Cir.1977), cert. denied, 437 U.S. 904 , 98 S.Ct. 3089 , 57 L.Ed.2d 1133 (1978); Spears v. Conlis…
cited Cited as authority (rule) JBK, Inc. v. City of Kansas City, Mo.
W.D. Mo. · 1986 · confidence medium
Myers v. Bull, 599 F.2d 863, 865 (8th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 901 , 100 S.Ct. 213 , 62 L.Ed.2d 138 (1979); and see First Nat’l.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Lamb v. Equifax Services, Inc.
E.D. Mo. · 1985 · confidence medium
Myers v. Bull, 599 F.2d 863, 865 (8th Cir.1979); Cemer v. Marathon Oil Co., 583 F.2d 830 (6th Cir.1978); C.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cannon v. Loyola University of Chicago
N.D. Ill. · 1985 · confidence medium
McCrocklin v. Fowler, 285 F.Supp. 41 (E.D.Wis.1968) (laches), affd on opinion below, 411 F.2d 580 (7th Cir.1969); see also Ellingson v. Burlington Northern, Inc., 653 F.2d 1327 , 1330-31 n. 3 (9th Cir.1981) (limitations); Myers v. Bull, 599 F.2d 863, 865 (8th Cir.1979) (per curiam) (limitations), cert, denied, 444 U.S. 901 , 100 S.Ct. 213 , 62 L.Ed.2d 138 (1979); Mathis v. Laird, 457 F.2d 926, 927 (5th Cir.1972) (per curiam) (limitations), cert, denied, 409 U.S. 871 , 93 S.Ct. 201 , 34 L.Ed.2d 122 (1972); Wright, Miller & Cooper, § 4441 at 366.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wickstrom v. Ebert
E.D. Wis. · 1984 · confidence medium
See Brawer v. Horowitz, 535 F.2d 830, 836-837 (3d Cir. 1976) (lay witness immunized from subsequent prosecution in Bivens type suit); Burke v. Miller, 580 F.2d 108, 109-110 (4th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 930 , 99 S.Ct. 1268 , 59 L.Ed.2d 487 (1979) (witness immunity protects state medical examiner from § 1983 liability); Kincaid v. Eberle, 712 F.2d 1023, 1023-1024 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 551 , 78 L.Ed.2d 725 (1983) (grand jury witness shielded by absolute immunity in § 1983 action); Myers v. Bull, 599 F.2d 863, 866 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 901 , 100 S…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Crisp v. City of Alcoa
E.D. Tenn. · 1983 · confidence medium
See Yaselli v. Goff, 12 F.2d 396, 403 (2nd Cir.1926), aff’d 275 U.S. 503 , 48 S.Ct. 155 , 72 L.Ed. 395 (1927); Myers v. Bull, 599 F.2d 863, 866 (8th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 901 , 100 S.Ct. 213 , 62 L.Ed.2d 138 ; Borg v. Boas, 231 F.2d 788 , (9th Cir.1956); Lofland v. Meyers, 442 F.Supp. 955, at 959 (S.D.N.Y.1977).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Briscoe v. LaHue (2×)
SCOTUS · 1983 · confidence medium
Brawer v. Horowitz, 535 F. 2d 830, 836-837 (CA3 1976) (lay witness in federal court; Bivens action); Burke v. Miller, 580 F. 2d 108 (CA4 1978) (state medical examiner; § 1983 action), cert. denied, 440 U. S. 930 (1979); Charles v. Wade, 665 F. 2d 661 (CA5 1982) (police officer victim; § 1983 suit), cert. pending, No. 81-1881; Myers v. Bull, 599 F. 2d 863, 866 (CA8) (police officer witness; § 1983 suit), cert. denied, 444 U. S. 901 (1979); Blevins v. Ford, 572 F. 2d 1336 (CA9 1978) (private witnesses and former Assistant U. S. Attorney; action under § 1983 and the Fifth Amendment).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Iseley v. Bucks County
E.D. Pa. · 1982 · confidence medium
Brawer v. Horowitz, 535 F.2d 830, 836-37 (3d Cir. 1976); Charles v. Wade, 665 F.2d 661 (5th Cir. 1982); Briscoe v. LaHue, 663 F.2d 713, 720 (7th Cir. 1981), cert. granted, - U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 1708 , 72 L.Ed.2d 132 (1982); Myers v. Bull, 599 F.2d 863, 866 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 901 , 100 S.Ct. 213 , 62 L.Ed.2d 138 (1979); Blevins v. Ford, 572 F.2d 1336, 1338 (9th Cir. 1978); Burke v. Miller, 580 F.2d 108, 110 (4th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 930 , 99 S.Ct. 1268 , 59 L.Ed.2d 487 (1979); Bennett v. Passic, 545 F.2d 1260, 1264 (10th Cir. 1976).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Earl Charles v. F. W. Wade, Leo B. Ryan and City of Savannah, Georgia (2×)
5th Cir. · 1982 · confidence medium
In each of these cases the Court had adopted essentially the same immunity under § 1983 that had prevailed at common law. 3 It is clear that at common law a witness was absolutely protected from any suit arising from his testimony in a judicial proceeding, Myers v. Bull, 599 F.2d 863, 866 (8th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 901 , 100 S.Ct. 213 , 62 L.Ed.2d 138 (1980); Brawer v. Horowitz, 535 F.2d 830, 837 (3d Cir. 1976), even if his testimony was perjured and malicious. 1 F. Harper & F. James, The Law of Torts, § 5.22 at 423-24 (1956); W.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Otha Lee Conley v. Office of the Public Defender, Sixth Judicial District of Arkansas, Pulaski and Perry Counties
6th Cir. · 1981 · confidence medium
Myers v. Bull, 599 F.2d 863, 866 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 901 , 100 S.Ct. 213 , 62 L.Ed.2d 138 (1979).
cited Cited "see" Hal Stanley v. Asa Hutchinson
8th Cir. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
See Myers v. Bull, 599 F.2d 863, 866 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 901 (1979).
discussed Cited "see" Andes v. Paden, Welch, Martin & Albano, P.C.
Mo. Ct. App. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See Myers v. Bull, 599 F.2d 863, 865 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 901 , 100 S.Ct. 213 , 62 L.Ed.2d 138 (1979); Fansher v. Kassel, 782 F.Supp. 1334, 1336 (E.D.Mo.1992); Lamb v. Equifax Servs., Inc., 620 F.Supp. 1457, 1458 (E.D.Mo.1985).
discussed Cited "see" Koch v. Schneider
N.D. Ill. · 1982 · signal: accord · confidence high
Accord, Myers v. Bull, 599 F.2d 863, 866 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 901 , 100 S.Ct. 213 , 62 L.Ed.2d 138 (1979); Burke v. Miller, 580 F.2d 108, 109 (4th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 930 , 99 S.Ct. 1268 , 59 L.Ed.2d 487 (1979); Blevins v. Ford, 572 F.2d 1336, 1338 (9th Cir.1978).
discussed Cited "see" Allen v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Md.
D.S.C. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See, Myers v. Bull, 599 F.2d 863, 864 (8th Cir. 1979) (which deals with the application of a Missouri statute similar to Section 15-3-540(1) to police officers); Peterson v. Fink, 515 F.2d 815, 817 (8th Cir. 1975) (where the court, in an action brought pursuant to Section 1985 of Title 42 of the United States Code, construed the same Missouri statute as being applicable to agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation); Williford v. Crenshaw, No. 79-1787-2 (D.S.C.1979) (where Section 15-3-540(1) was applied to municipal police officers in an action brought pursuant to Title 42, United States C…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." David Perez v. Matthew F. Gaffey
8th Cir. · 1998 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See Strength v. Hubert, 854 F.2d 421, 424 (11th Cir. 1988) (holding that, because witness testimony at a grand jury hearing is a function that is intimately associated with a judicial phase of the criminal process, absolute immunity should be granted to grand jury witnesses); San Filippo v. U.S. Trust Co. of NY, Inc., 737 F.2d 246, 254 (2d Cir. 1984) (noting that, although the United States Supreme Court left this question open, “it must follow that grand jury witnesses should be similarly protected”); Kincaid v. Eberle, 712 F.2d 1023, 1023-24 (7th Cir. 1983) (finding that common law gave …
discussed Cited "see, e.g." County of Boyd v. US Ecology, Inc.
D. Neb. · 1994 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also Myers v. Bull, 599 F.2d 863, 865 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 901 , 100 S.Ct. 213 , 62 L.Ed.2d 138 (1979) (plaintiffs attempt to resurrect two claims raised in previous complaint was barred by res judicata effect of district court’s previous decision that claims were brought outside of the period of the applicable statute of limitations); Cannon v. Loyola Univ. of Chicago, 784 F.2d 777, 781 (7th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1033 , 107 S.Ct. 880 , 93 L.Ed.2d 834 (1987) (disposition of applicant’s actions under Title IX of Education Amendments of 1972 and 42 U.S.C. § 198…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Austin v. Super Valu Stores, Inc.
8th Cir. · 1994 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Slip op. at 5-6, citing Guidry v. Bayly, Martin & Fay of Louisiana, Inc., 545 So.2d 567, 569-70 (La.Ct.App.) (dismissal on statute of limitations ground is decision on the merits for preclusion purposes), writ denied, 551 So.2d 638 (La.1989), and Nitz v. Nitz, 456 N.W.2d 450, 452-53 (Minn.Ct.App.1990) (same); see also Myers v. Bull, 599 F.2d 863, 865 (8th Cir.) (per curiam) (same), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 901 , 100 S.Ct. 213 , 62 L.Ed.2d 138 (1979).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Austin v. Super Valu Stores, Inc.
8th Cir. · 1994 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Slip op. at 5-6, citing Guidry v. Bayly, Martin & Fay of Louisiana, Inc., 545 So.2d 567, 569-70 (La.Ct.App.) (dismissal on statute of limitations ground is decision on the merits for preclusion purposes), writ denied, 551 So.2d 638 (La.1989), and Nitz v. Nitz, 456 N.W.2d 450, 452-53 (Minn.Ct.App.1990) (same); see also Myers v. Bull, 599 F.2d 863, 865 (8th Cir.) (per curiam) (same), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 901 , 100 S.Ct. 213 , 62 L.Ed.2d 138 (1979).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Michael J. Delaney Martha J. Delaney Corinne Delaney v. Alfred F. Meiners Mary Ann Meiners Shearson Lehman Brothers, Inc., Michael J. Delaney Martha J. Delaney Corinne Delaney v. Alfred F. Meiners Mary Ann Meiners Shearson Lehman Brothers
8th Cir. · 1994 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See Anderson v. Central Mo. State Univ., 789 S.W.2d 41, 43 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990); see also Myers v. Bull, 599 F.2d 863, 865 (8th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 901 (1979). 9 We also conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the "motion for reconsideration" under Fed.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Jennifer Mills v. Des Arc Convalescent Home, Helen Mixon, Administrator Arkansas Convalescent Centers, Jennifer Mills v. Helen Mixon, Janice Weaver, Bernie Simmons, Des Arc Convalescent Home, Arkansas Convalescent Centers
8th Cir. · 1989 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Nilsen, 701 F.2d at 562 ; see also Myers v. Bull, 599 F.2d 863, 865 (8th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 901 , 100 S.Ct. 213 , 62 L.Ed.2d 138 (1979). 15 Regarding the "same cause of action" part of the third requirement, the Nilsen court noted that res judicata bars all claims that could have been advanced in support of a previously adjudicated cause of action, and that "one who has a choice of more than one remedy for a given wrong * * * may not assert them serially, in successive actions, but must advance all at once on pain of bar." 701 F.2d at 560 (footnote omitted).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Mills v. Des Arc Convalescent Home
8th Cir. · 1989 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Nilsen, 701 F.2d at 562 ; see also Myers v. Bull, 599 F.2d 863, 865 (8th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 901 , 100 S.Ct. 213 , 62 L.Ed.2d 138 (1979).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Warren v. Applebaum
E.D.N.Y · 1981 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., Myers v. Bull, 599 F.2d 863 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 901 , 100 S.Ct. 213 , 62 L.Ed.2d 138 (1979); Blevins v. Ford, 572 F.2d 1336, 1338 (9th Cir. 1978); O’Connor v. State of Nevada, 507 F.Supp. 546, 548 (D.Nev.1981).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Carlisle W. Briscoe v. Sgt. Martin Lahue, Charles Talley, Jr. v. James D. Crosson, Chris P. Vickers, Sr. And James N. Ballard v. Sgt. James W. Hunley, Individually and in His Capacity as an Agent or Employee of the Cedar Lake, Indiana Police Department
7th Cir. · 1981 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., Myers v. Bull, 599 F.2d 863 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 901 , 100 S.Ct. 213 , 62 L.Ed.2d 138 (1979); Blevins v. Ford, 572 F.2d 1336 (9th Cir. 1978); Burke v. Miller, 580 F.2d 108 (4th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 930 , 99 S.Ct. 1268 , 59 L.Ed.2d 487 (1979); Brawer v. Horowitz, 535 F.2d 830 (3d Cir. 1976). 38 In addition to the established common law tradition of absolute immunity, we perceive two other reasons that justify this conclusion.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Briscoe v. Lahue
7th Cir. · 1981 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., Myers v. Bull, 599 F.2d 863 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 901 , 100 S.Ct. 213 , 62 L.Ed.2d 138 (1979); Blevins v. Ford, 572 F.2d 1336 (9th Cir. 1978); Burke v. Miller, 580 F.2d 108 (4th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 930 , 99 S.Ct. 1268 , 59 L.Ed.2d 487 (1979); Brawer v. Horowitz, 535 F.2d 830 (3d Cir. 1976).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Bruce B. Landrigan v. City of Warwick
1st Cir. · 1980 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e. g., Myers v. Bull, 599 F.2d 863, 865 (8th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 100 S.Ct. 213 , 444 U.S. 901 , 62 L.Ed.2d 138 ; Burke v. Miller, 580 F.2d 108, 109 (4th Cir. 1978), cert.denied, 440 U.S. 930 , 99 S.Ct. 1268 , 59 L.Ed.2d 487 (1979); Blevins v. Ford, 572 F.2d 1336, 1338 (9th Cir. 1978); Bennett v. Passic, 545 F.2d 1260, 1263-64 (10th Cir. 1976); Brawer v. Horowitz, 535 F.2d 830, 836-37 (3d Cir. 1976); Smith v. Sinclair, 424 F.Supp. 1108, 1113 (W.D.Okla.1976); but see Briggs v. Goodwin, 569 F.2d 10, 26 (D.C.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Philip D. MYERS, Appellant,
v.
Clyde Harold BULL, Appellee
79-1028.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Jun 11, 1979.
599 F.2d 863
Philip D. Myers, pro se., Arthur S. Margulis, Margulis, Drumm & Rapp, St. Louis, Mo., on brief, for appellee.
Lay, Bright, Henley.
Cited by 51 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

Philip D. Myers appeals from the district court order dismissing his civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We affirm.

Appellant, who is presently incarcerated in the Missouri State Penitentiary in Jefferson City, was convicted of robbery in Missouri state court in 1974 and sentenced .to twenty-five years imprisonment. On November 14, 1977 he filed a civil rights lawsuit (No. 77-1026-0(3)) against Clyde H. Bull, a former Maplewood, Missouri police officer. Appellant alleged that Bull had given false testimony at his criminal trial and at a pretrial motion to suppress. The district court [1] dismissed the complaint as being barred by the applicable Missouri three-year statute of limitations. Mo.Rev. Stat. § 516.130. [2] On appeal, we vacated the order and remanded the case to the district court for consideration of appellant’s argument that the running of the statute of[*865] limitations was tolled by the operation of Mo.Rev.Stat. § 516.170. [3] Myers v. Bull, 578 F.2d 1384, No. 78-1139 (June 7, 1978) (unpublished order). On September 20, 1978 the district court entered an order holding that the statute of limitations was not tolled and again dismissed appellant’s complaint. Appellant took no appeal from this order.

On October 25, 1978 appellant filed another civil rights action against Bull (No. 78-1155-0(2)). He realleged the two acts of perjury contained in No. 78-1206-0(3) and also alleged that Bull had committed perjury in a deposition taken sometime before appellant’s trial. On November 8, 1978 the district court [4] dismissed the complaint. Myers v. Bull, 462 F.Supp. 107 (E.D.Mo.1978). The court’s memorandum opinion said that the two allegations of perjury repeated from No. 77-1206-0(3) were barred by the district court’s earlier decision and the statute of limitations and that the new perjury allegation was unpersuasive because: (1) a police officer testifying at a trial is not acting “under color of law”; and (2) witnesses in judicial proceedings are absolutely immune from civil suits. Id. at 108. This appeal ensued.

Appellant’s attempt to resurrect the two claims previously raised in No. 77-1206-0(3) is clearly barred by the res judicata effect of the district court’s decision in No. 77-1206-0(3) that the claims were brought outside the period of the applicable statute of limitations. See Liken v. Shaffer, 141 F.2d 877, 882 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 323 U.S. 756, 65 S.Ct. 90, 89 L.Ed. 605 (1944); 1B Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 0.409[6] at 1034 and n. 7 (2d ed. 1974). Appellant’s failure to appeal the previous decision does not affect the conclusive effect of that judgment. United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 39, 71 S.Ct. 104, 95 L.Ed. 26 (1950); Wilson’s Exec’r v. Deen, 121 U.S. 525, 532, 7 S.Ct. 1004, 30 L.Ed. 980 (1887).

With regard to appellant’s third claim, relating to the perjured deposition, there are a number of reasons why the claim was properly dismissed.

1. Under Color of Law.

In holding that Bull was not acting under color of law, the district court relied on Edwards v. Vasel, 349 F.Supp. 164 (E.D. Mo.), aff’d, 469 F.2d 338 (8th Cir. 1972), in which we approved the district court’s holding that a police officer who testified in plaintiff’s habeas corpus hearing was not acting under color of law and was thus not liable to suit under § 1983 based on his allegedly perjurious testimony. We note that other courts which have considered the question have also held that witnesses, including police officers, do not act under color of law when they testify at a judicial proceeding. See Blevins v. Ford, 572 F.2d 1336, 1338 (9th Cir. 1978); Taylor v. Nichols, 558 F.2d 561, 564 (10th Cir. 1977); Bennett v. Passic, 545 F.2d 1260, 1263-64 (10th Cir. 1976) (police officers); Grow v. Fisher, 523 F.2d 875, 879 (7th Cir. 1975); Smith v. Sinclair, 424 F.Supp. 1108, 1113 (W.D.Okl. 1976) (police officers); Stambler v. Dillon, 302 F.Supp. 1250, 1255 (S.D.N.Y.1969). [5]

[*866] 2. Witness Immunity.

The common law rule was that witnesses were absolutely immune from civil suits arising from their testimony in judicial proceedings, even if such testimony was perjurious. Burke v. Miller, 580 F.2d 108, 109 (4th Cir. 1978). A majority of courts have held this principle applicable to civil rights actions. See, e. g., id. (§ 1983 case); Blevins v. Ford, supra, 572 F.2d at 1338 (Bivens -type claim); [6] Brawer v. Horowitz, 535 F.2d 830, 836-37 (3d Cir. 1976) (Bivens -type claim); Lofland v. Myers, 442 F.Supp. 955, 959 (S.D.N.Y.1977) (Bivens -type claim). But see Briggs v. Goodwin, 186 U.S.App. D.C. 179, 194-198, 569 F.2d 10, 25-29 (1977), cert. denied, 437 U.S. 904, 98 S.Ct. 3089, 57 L.Ed.2d 1133 (1978) (Bivens -type claim) (alternative holding).

Without engaging in an unduly detailed discussion of the history of the common law rule granting absolute immunity to witnesses, we agree that the majority position is correct and that witnesses should be immune from civil rights suits alleging perjurious testimony. In Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976), the Supreme Court held prosecutors immune from civil rights suits based on acts taken in the course of their duties. In so holding, the Court stressed the need for full disclosure of relevant evidence to the jury and noted that a prosecutor might be reluctant to call witnesses if he would be subject to civil suit based on the allegation that he knew or should have known that they were testifying falsely. Id. at 426, 96 5. Ct. 984. A similar rationale would apply to witnesses who might be reluctant to give their version of the case if faced with the possibility of civil suit if their testimony is disbelieved by the trier of fact. In addition, the Court noted that there are already substantial checks on the prosecutor’s activity, including prosecution under the criminal analog of § 1983,18 U.S.C. § 242. Id. at 429, 96 S.Ct. 984. Similarly, witnesses would be liable to criminal prosecution for perjury in most, if not all, jurisdictions. Finally, in a concurring opinion, Justice White, joined by Justices Brennan and Marshall, specifically recognized the witness immunity rule in such a way as to indicate that it is co-extensive with the immunity of other participants at trial — i. e., judges and prosecutors. Id. at 439-40, 96 S.Ct. 984.

3. Failure to State a Claim.

Bull’s alleged perjury took place in a deposition given prior to trial. It does not appear that this deposition was ever introduced or referred to in appellant’s trial. [7] Therefore, we fail to discern how appellant’s rights have been in any way infringed. Absent some showing that the alleged perjurious deposition had some causal relationship to appellant’s conviction, he has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Cf. Hilliard v. Williams, supra, 516 F.2d at 1351.

The order of the district court is affirmed.

1

. The Honorable John F. Nangle, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

2

. Section 516.130, which requires that certain actions be brought within three years, includes the following:

(1) An action against a sheriff, coroner or other officer, upon a liability incurred by the doing of an act in his official capacity and in virtue of his office, or by the omission of an official duty, including the nonpayment of money collected upon an execution or otherwise; .
3

. Section 516.170 provides:

Except as provided in section 516.105, if any person entitled to bring an action in sections 516.100 to 516.370 specified, at the time the cause of action accrued be either within the age of twenty-one years, or insane, or imprisoned on a criminal charge, or in execution under a sentence of a criminal court for a less term than for his natural life, such person shall be at liberty to bring such actions within the respective times in sections 516.100 to 516.370 limited after such disability is removed.
4

. The Honorable H. Kenneth Wangelin, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

5

. The only case to which we have been referred that is arguably to the contrary is Hilliard v. Williams, 516 F.2d 1344 (6th Cir. 1975), vacated and remanded in part on other grounds, 424 U.S. 961, 96 S.Ct. 1453, 47 L.Ed.2d 729 (1976), on remand, 540 F.2d 220 (6th Cir. 1976). In Hilliard the court held a police officer liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false and misleading testimony given at a criminal trial. The court did not, however, address the question whether the officer was acting under color of law. In any event, Hilliard is distinguishable on this[*866] question because the police officer testified falsely at the direction of the prosecuting attorney. No such claim is made in the instant case.

6

. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971).

7

. If the deposition had been introduced at trial, appellant would have known of its existence then, and his claim of perjury in the deposition would suffer the same statute of limitations problems as his claims of perjured testimony at trial and the suppression hearing.