Legal Opinion
Stephen Buckley v. J. Michael Fitzsimmons
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Decided June 7, 1994No. 89-2441, 89-2899 and 89-2900PublishedCited by 144 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge.
The Supreme Court returned this ease to us with these instructions:
In his complaint, petitioner also charged that the prosecutors violated his rights under the Due Process Clause through extraction of statements implicating him by coercing two witnesses and paying them money. App. 9-11, 19. The precise contours of these claims are unclear, and they were not addressed below; we leave them to be passed on in the first instance by the Court of Appeals on remand.
— U.S.— - —, 113 S.Ct. 2606, 2619, 125 L.Ed.2d 209 (1993). The Court also remanded more generally “for…
2Cases cited57 opinions
- Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Harlow v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Anderson v. CreightonSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Hudson v. PalmerSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
52 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by144 opinions
- Herbert Whitlock v. Charles BrueggeCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2012
- Zaher Zahrey v. Martin E. CoffeyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2000
- Rivera Petty v. City of ChicagoCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2014
- James Newsome v. John McCabe and Raymond McNallyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2001
- Basim Esmail, Zabco Enterprises, Incorporated, and Nazco Enterprises, Incorporated v. Samuel T. MacRane Jr.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1995
139 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.