Difference between revisions of "Conn v. Gabbert"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(New page: In ''Conn v. Gabbert'', 526 U.S. 286 (1999), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a court evaluating a claim of qualified immunity "must first determine whether the plaintiff has alleg...)
 
(top: clean up & uniformity)
 
(3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
In ''Conn v. Gabbert'', 526 U.S. 286 (1999), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] held that a court evaluating a claim of [[qualified immunity]] "must first determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right at all, and if so, proceed to determine whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation."
+
In '''''Conn v. Gabbert''''', 526 U.S. 286 (1999), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] held that a [[court]] evaluating a claim of [[qualified immunity]] "must first determine whether the [[plaintiff]] has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right at all, and if so, proceed to determine whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation."
  
Chief Justice [[William Rehnquist]] wrote the opinion for the nearly unanimous Court.  He considered "whether a prosecutor violates an attorney's [[Fourteenth Amendment]] right to practice his profession when the prosecutor causes the attorney to be searched at the same time his client is testifying before a grand jury" and held "that such conduct by a prosecutor does not violate an attorney's [[Fourteenth Amendment]] right to practice his profession."
+
[[Chief Justice]] [[William Rehnquist]] wrote the opinion for the nearly unanimous Court.  He considered "whether a prosecutor violates an [[attorney]]'s [[Fourteenth Amendment]] right to practice his profession when the prosecutor causes the attorney to be searched at the same time his client is testifying before a grand jury" and held "that such conduct by a prosecutor does not violate an attorney's [[Fourteenth Amendment]] right to practice his profession."
[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]
+
 
[[category:qualified immunity]]
+
[[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]
 +
[[Category:Qualified Immunity]]
 +
[[Category:Section 1983]]

Latest revision as of 06:44, July 13, 2016

In Conn v. Gabbert, 526 U.S. 286 (1999), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a court evaluating a claim of qualified immunity "must first determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right at all, and if so, proceed to determine whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation."

Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote the opinion for the nearly unanimous Court. He considered "whether a prosecutor violates an attorney's Fourteenth Amendment right to practice his profession when the prosecutor causes the attorney to be searched at the same time his client is testifying before a grand jury" and held "that such conduct by a prosecutor does not violate an attorney's Fourteenth Amendment right to practice his profession."