Gomez v. Toledo
- Decided
- May 27, 1980
- Docket
- 79-5601
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 2,697 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- concluding that there was no basis for imposing on plaintiff the burden to anticipate an affirmative defense — Bausch v. Stryker Corp. (2010)
- holding that a civil-rights plaintiff need not plead facts relevant to a qualified immunity defense in order to state a claim — Powers-Bunce v. District of Columbia (2007)
- holding that defendant in civil rights case has burden of pleading defense of qualified immunity and plaintiff has no obligation to anticipate such defense — Rosen v. Brookhaven Capital Management, Co., Ltd. (2002)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Mr. Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented is whether, in an action brought under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 against a public official whose position might entitle him to qualified immunity, a plaintiff must [*636] allege that the official has acted in bad faith in order to state a claim for relief or, alternatively, whether the defendant must plead good faith as an affirmative defense.
I
Statutes cited
Cite this
Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635 (1980)Read the full opinion
Free account needed
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.