Legal Opinion
Minneci v. Pollard
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided January 10, 2012No. 10-1104PublishedCited by 421 opinions
1Opinion of the Court 1
*610OPINION OF THE COURT
[565 U.S. 120]
2Opinion of the Court · BreyerJustice Breyer
The question is whether we can imply the existence of an Eighth Amendment-based damages action (a Bivens action) against employees of a privately operated federal prison. See generally Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 389, 91 S. Ct. 1999, 29 L. Ed. 2d 619 (1971) (“[V]iolation of [the Fourth Amendment] by a federal agent. . . gives rise to a cause of action for damages” against a Federal Government employee). Because we believe that in the circumstances present here state tort law authorizes adequate alternative damages…
3Cases cited29 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Estelle v. GambleSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Farmer v. BrennanSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of NarcoticsSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Federal Deposit Insurance v. MeyerSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by421 opinions
- Ziglar v. AbbasiSupreme Court of the United States · 2017
- Egbert v. BouleSupreme Court of the United States · 2022
- Hernandez v. MesaSupreme Court of the United States · 2020
- Pahls v. ThomasCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2013
- Roger Vanderklok v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2017
416 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.