Supreme Court of the United States
Wyatt v. Cole
May 18, 1992504 U.S. 158
Summary
Justice O'Connor, writing for six Justices, held that private defendants facing § 1983 liability for invoking unconstitutional state replevin, garnishment, or attachment statutes are not entitled to the qualified immunity from suit recognized in Harlow. The Court distinguished that immunity from possible good-faith or probable-cause defenses, which it left unresolved, and reversed and remanded for further proceedings, including determination of whether respondents acted under color of state law. Justice Kennedy, joined by Justice Scalia, concurred, emphasizing adherence to common-law principles and the potential relevance of subjective good faith rather than extending Harlow's policy-based immunity. Chief Justice Rehnquist, joined by Justices Souter and Thomas, dissented, arguing that historical good-faith protections and the public interest in reliance on presumptively valid laws justified qualified immunity.
Holding
- Availability of Harlow qualified immunity to private parties invoking state property-seizure procedures.. Private defendants facing § 1983 liability for invoking a state replevin, garnishment, or attachment statute are not entitled to Harlow qualified immunity from suit.
Docket 91-126
Cited authorities
- CA11
- 42 U.S.C. § 1983
- 42 U.S.C. § 1983
- 42 U.S.C. § 1983
- 42 U.S.C. § 1983
- 42 U.S.C. § 1983
- Miss. Code Ann. § 11-37-101
Cited by
- Mark R. Frisby v. the State of California Department of Justice
- Hamidi v. Service Employees International Union Local 1000
- Harper v. City of Merced
- Mark R. Frisby v. the State of California Department of Justice
- DuJuan Mauricio Fernandez v. Cynthia Tampkins
- Many v. Vermont Department of Corrections
- Martell v. City of St. Albans, Vermont
- Gadreault v. Bent