Crawford-El v. Britton
Significance, Other Opinions, Impact, Inmate Conditions
Leonard Rollon Crawford-El
That the district court's direct evidence rule and the appeals court's "clear and convincing evidence" standard for persons seeking to sue government officials should be rejected.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Daniel M. Schember
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
John M. Ferren
Justices for the Court
Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, John Paul Stevens (writing for the Court)
Sandra Day O'Connor, William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas
Date of Decision
4 May 1998
The Court rejected the court of appeals' "unprecedented" introduction of a new standard that plaintiffs must meet in order to bring suit against government officials, on the grounds that the change undermines the law providing remedies for violations of federal rights.
- Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (1961).
- Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982).
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982).
Austin, James and John Irwin. It's About Time: America's Imprisonment Binge. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1994.
- Biskupic, Joan, and Elder Witt, eds. Congressional Quarterly's Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1996.
- Curran v. Mount Diablo Council of the Boy Scouts of America - Significance, Exclusion Of Gays, Atheists, And Agnostics, Boy Scouts In New Jersey, Impact
- County of Sacramento v. Lewis - Significance, Further Readings
- Crawford-El v. Britton - Significance
- Crawford-El v. Britton - Other Opinions
- Crawford-El v. Britton - Impact
- Crawford-El v. Britton - Inmate Conditions
- Other Free Encyclopedias