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.