An Entity of Type: unit of work, from Named Graph: http://dbpedia.org, within Data Space: dbpedia.org:8891

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.

Property Value
dbo:abstract
  • 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. (en)
dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
dbo:wikiPageID
  • 21571400 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageLength
  • 8223 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
  • 1122549100 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbp:arguedate
  • 0001-10-08 (xsd:gMonthDay)
dbp:argueyear
  • 1980 (xsd:integer)
dbp:case
  • Dennis v. Sparks, (en)
dbp:courtlistener
dbp:decidedate
  • 0001-11-17 (xsd:gMonthDay)
dbp:decideyear
  • 1980 (xsd:integer)
dbp:findlaw
dbp:fullname
  • Dennis v. Sparks ET AL., DBA Sidney A. Sparks, Trustee (en)
dbp:googlescholar
dbp: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 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. (en)
dbp:joinmajority
  • unanimous (en)
dbp:justia
dbp:litigants
  • Dennis v. Sparks (en)
dbp:loc
dbp:majority
  • White (en)
dbp:oyez
dbp:parallelcitations
  • 172800.0
dbp:prior
  • 17280.0
dbp:uspage
  • 24 (xsd:integer)
dbp:usvol
  • 449 (xsd:integer)
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
dcterms:subject
rdf:type
rdfs:comment
  • 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. (en)
rdfs:label
  • Dennis v. Sparks (en)
owl:sameAs
prov:wasDerivedFrom
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
foaf:name
  • (en)
  • Dennis v. Sparks ET AL., DBA Sidney A. Sparks, Trustee (en)
is dbo:wikiPageRedirects of
is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink of
is foaf:primaryTopic of
Powered by OpenLink Virtuoso    This material is Open Knowledge     W3C Semantic Web Technology     This material is Open Knowledge    Valid XHTML + RDFa
This content was extracted from Wikipedia and is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License