Imbler v. Pachtman
Citations
- 424 U.S. 409
- 96 S. Ct. 984
- 47 L. Ed. 2d 128
- 1976 U.S. LEXIS 25
About this case
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1976 United States Supreme Court case
Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976), was a United States Supreme Court case in which district attorneys or prosecutors were found to have full immunity from civil suits resulting from their government duties.[1]
Imbler, a defendant in a murder trial, had been convicted and sentenced when the district attorney, Pachtman, revealed new evidence that he said had recently surfaced and which exonerated Imbler. Imbler used the new evidence to successfully free himself, then brought up a civil suit alleging that Pachtman had withheld evidence. The suit, however, was dismissed on the grounds that Pachtman had prosecutorial immunity , a finding which the Supreme Court affirmed.
See also
[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Imbler_v._Pachtman&action=edit§ion=1 "Edit section: See also")
]
References
[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Imbler_v._Pachtman&action=edit§ion=2 "Edit section: References")
]
External links
[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Imbler_v._Pachtman&action=edit§ion=3 "Edit section: External links")
]
Works related to Imbler v. Pachtman at Wikisource
Text of Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) is available from: CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Internet Archive (docket files) Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)
Brummet, D. (1979) Chi.-Kent L. Rev. _Section 1983, Immunity, and the Public Defender: The Misapplication of Imbler v. Pachtman. _
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Imbler_v._Pachtman&oldid=1351330222 "
Hidden categories:
Search
Search
Imbler v. Pachtman
Add languages Add topic
Editorial context from Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA 4.0).
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- preparation for indictment involves the “obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating of evidence,” which requires “mak[ing] decisions on a wide variety of sensitive issues”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Powell, Burger, Stewart, Blackmun, Rehnquist, White, Brennan, Marshall, Stevens
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.