Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Mitchell v. Forsyth

Mitchell v. Forsyth, 453 U.S. 913 (1981)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1981-06-29
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • holding notice adequate even when final rule setting standard for allowable exposure of airborne lead in workplace was twice as stringent as proposed rule
  • finding the collateral order test satisfied because the question of immunity from suit was totally unconnected with the merits of the action
  • "[A] final rule may properly differ from a proposed rule ... when the record evidence warrants the change."
  • 15% level of minority and women employment with regards to city’s.major construction contracts
  • statute designed to deter or prevent government from improperly invading individual privacy
  • “the decision of the Attorney General, or a prosecuting attorney, to initiate a prosecution is not made in a vacuum ... [t]he right to make the decision ... must include some limited right to gather necessary information”
  • If Attorney General's authorization of warrantless wiretap was made in attempt to secure information to determine whether to initiate a criminal prosecution, then he was entitled to absolute immunity. Case remanded to district court for development of the record
  • claim of absolute official immunity

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Mitchell v. Forsyth. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
264 opinions

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.