Stump v. Sparkman
| Stump v. Sparkman | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued January 10, 1978 Decided March 28, 1978 |
|
| Full case name | Harold D. Stump, et al. v. Linda Kay Sparkman and Leo Sparkman |
| Citations | 435 U.S. 349 (more)
98 S. Ct. 1099; 55 L. Ed. 2d 331; 1978 U.S. LEXIS 74
|
| Prior history |
Civ.No. F-75-129 (N.D. Ind. May 13, 1976) 552 F.2d 172 (7th Cir. 1977) |
| Subsequent history |
Rehearing Denied June 5, 1978, 436 U.S. 951, 98 S.Ct. 2862, 56 L.Ed.2d 795 Remand 601 F.2nd 261 (7th Cir. 1979) |
| Holding | |
| A judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority. He will be subject to liability only when he has acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction. | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | White, joined by Burger, Blackmun, Rehnquist, Stevens |
| Dissent | Stewart, joined by Marshall, Powell |
| Dissent | Powell |
| Brennan took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
| Laws applied | |
| 42 U.S.C. § 1983 | |
 http://www.in.gov/history/images/4920071f.JPG" Linda Sparkman views the 1907 Indiana Eugenics Law marker in Indianapolis, April 12, 2007. |
Civ.No. F-75-129 (N.D. Ind. May 13, 1976) 552 F.2d 172 (7th Cir. 1977)
Rehearing Denied June 5, 1978, 436 U.S. 951, 98 S.Ct. 2862, 56 L.Ed.2d 795
Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978), is the leading United States Supreme Court decision on judicial immunity. It involved an Indiana judge who was sued by a young woman who had been sterilized without her knowledge as a minor in accordance with the judge's order. The Supreme Court held that the judge was immune from being sued for issuing the order because it was issued as a judicial function. The case has been called one of the most controversial in recent Supreme Court history.
In 1971, Judge Harold D. Stump granted a mother's petition to have a tubal ligation performed on her 15-year-old daughter, who the mother alleged was "somewhat retarded." The petition was granted the same day that it was filed. The judge did not hold a hearing to receive evidence or appoint a lawyer to protect the daughter's interests. The daughter underwent the surgery a week later, having been told that she was to have her appendix removed.
The daughter married two years later. Failing to become pregnant, she learned that she had been sterilized during the 1971 operation. The daughter and her husband sued the judge and others associated with the sterilization in federal district court.
The district court found that the judge was immune from suit. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision, holding that the judge had lost his immunity because he failed to observe "elementary principles of due process" when he ordered the sterilization. Finally, in 1978, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-3 decision, reversed the Court of Appeals, announcing a test for deciding when judicial immunity should apply and holding that the judge could not be sued.
...
Wikipedia