Supreme Court· 4/5/1999

Conn v. Gabbert

Citations

526 U.S. 286
119 S. Ct. 1292
143 L. Ed. 2d 399
1999 U.S. LEXIS 2345
12 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 193

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

recognizing that cases in this area “all deal with a complete prohibition of the right”
holding that attorney did not have standing to assert his client's alleged right as a grand jury witness to have counsel present outside the jury room
holding that attorney did not have standing to assert his client’s alleged right as a grand jury witness to have counsel present outside the jury room
recognizing that cases in this area “all deal with a complete prohibition of the right”
holding that in determining whether qualified immunity applies in a specific case, the court must first determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right at all
holding that the right to choose one’s field of private employment is not violated when the state action does not constitute a “complete prohibition of the right to engage in a calling”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Rehnquist, O'Con-Nor, Scaua, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

443 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

12 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Conn v. Gabbert

2 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.