Dennis v. Sparks
1980 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Dennis v. Sparks?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
SHOW ALL QUESTIONS
Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24 (1980), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that individuals who bribed a judge for an injunction were not protected by judicial immunity and therefore could be held liable for the damages resulting from the injunction.[2]
Quick Facts Dennis v. Sparks, Argued October 8, 1980 Decided November 17, 1980 ...
Dennis v. Sparks | |
---|---|
Argued October 8, 1980 Decided November 17, 1980 | |
Full case name | Dennis v. Sparks ET AL., DBA Sidney A. Sparks, Trustee |
Citations | 449 U.S. 24 (more) 101 S. Ct. 183; 66 L. Ed. 2d 185; 1980 U.S. LEXIS 9 |
Case history | |
Prior | Sparks v. Duval County Ranch Co., 604 F.2d 976 (5th Cir. 1979); cert. granted, 445 U.S. 942 (1980). |
Holding | |
The action against the private parties accused of conspiring with the judge is not subject to dismissal. Private persons, jointly engaged with state officials in a challenged action, are acting "under color" of law for purposes of 1983 actions. And the judge's immunity from damages liability for an official act that was allegedly the product of a corrupt conspiracy involving bribery of the judge does not change the character of his action or that of his co-conspirators. Historically at common law, judicial immunity does not insulate from damages liability those private persons who corruptly conspire with a judge. Nor has the doctrine of judicial immunity been considered historically as excusing a judge from responding as a witness when his co-conspirators are sued, even though a charge of conspiracy and judicial corruption will be aired and decided. Gravel v. United States[1] distinguished. The potential harm to the public from denying immunity to co-conspirators if the factfinder mistakenly upholds a charge of a corrupt conspiracy is outweighed by the benefits of providing a remedy [449 U.S. 24, 25] against those private persons who participate in subverting the judicial process and in so doing inflict injury on other persons. pp. 27–32. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinion | |
Majority | White, joined by unanimous |
Close