Crawford-El v. Britton
- Decided
- May 4, 1998
- Docket
- 96-827
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 2,583 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that a non-movant carries its burden on summary judgment only by “identify[ing] affirmative evidence” which creates a genuine dispute of material fact — Blitz Telecom Consulting, LLC v. Peerless Network, Inc. (2015)
- holding that correction officer’s misdirection of inmate’s personal belongings may constitute a claim of retaliation for exercise of First Amendment rights — Ford v. Reynolds (2004)
- holding that a prisoner bringing a § 1983 action against government official need not present clear and convincing evidence of official’s improper motive in order to defeat official’s motion for summary judgment — Danley v. Allen (2008)
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
Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner, a long-time prison inmate, seeks damages from a corrections officer based on a constitutional claim that requires proof of improper motive. The broad question presented is whether the courts of appeals may craft special procedural rules for such cases to protect public servants from the burdens of trial and discovery that may impair the performance of their official duties. The more specific question is whether, at least in eases brought by prisoners, the [*578] plaintiff must adduce- clear and convincing evidence of improper motive in order to defeat a motion for summary-judgment.
I
Statutes cited
Cite this
Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574 (1998)Read the full opinion
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.