Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
SCOTUS Transcript of Rehberg hearing

SCOTUS Transcript of Rehberg hearing

Ratings: (0)|Views: 79|Likes:
Published by John David Sumner

More info:

Categories:Types, Legal forms
Published by: John David Sumner on Nov 02, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

11/02/2011

pdf

text

original

 
 
123456789101112131415161718192021222324251
Official - Subject to Final Review
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - xCHARLES A. REHBERG, :Petitioner :v. : No. 10-788JAMES P. PAULK, ET AL. :- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - xWashington, D.C.Tuesday, November 1, 2011The above-entitled matter came on for oralargument before the Supreme Court of the United Statesat 10:01 a.m.APPEARANCES:ANDREW J. PINCUS, ESQ., Washington, D.C.; on behalf ofPetitioner.JOHN C. JONES, ESQ., Marietta, Georgia; on behalf ofRespondents.
Alderson Reporting Company
 
 
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252
Official - Subject to Final Review
C O N T E N T SORAL ARGUMENT OF PAGEANDREW J. PINCUS, ESQ.On behalf of the Petitioner 3ORAL ARGUMENT OFJOHN C. JONES, ESQ.On behalf of the Respondents 27REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OFANDREW J. PINCUS, ESQ.On behalf of the Petitioner 49
Alderson Reporting Company
 
123456789101112131415161718192021222324253
Official - Subject to Final Review
P R O C E E D I N G S(10:01 a.m.}CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: We will hearargument first this morning in Case 10-788,Rehberg v. Paulk.Mr. Pincus.ORAL ARGUMENT OF ANDREW J. PINCUSON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERMR. PINCUS: Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice,and may it please the Court:This Court has twice held, in Malley and inKalina, that a complaining witness who sets a criminalprosecution in motion by submitting a false affidavit isentitled to qualified immunity, but not absoluteimmunity, in an action under section 1983. The Courtrested that conclusion on its determination thatcomplaining witnesses were subject to damages liabilityat common law when -- in 1871 when section 1983 wasenacted.The question in this case is whether therule of Malley and Kalina also applies to a complainingwitness who sets a prosecution in motion by testifyingbefore a grand jury. Again, the common law provides theanswer. The law is clear that in 1871 damages liabilitycould be based on false grand jury testimony.
Alderson Reporting Company

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->