Talk:Stump v. Sparkman

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 October 2020 and 16 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lovely Chrysanthemum.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Scope of Ruling

Was there ever a definitive ruling on whether or not Stump had in fact violated Ms. Sparkman's procedural due process rights, whether or not the doctors were subject to any sort of discipline or tort lawsuit, and whether or not McFarlin's action constituted child abuse, or was the lawsuit dismissed, the dismissal upheld on judicial immunity grounds, and that was it? Basically, what's the impact: are the facts of the case legally and constitutionally repeatable or not?

According to the book I have been reading (Black Mondays, by Joel D. Joseph), after the Supreme Court n00bed it up and ruled that the judges were immune, "The case was sent back to the court of appeals to determine whether the judge's immunity should shield the doctors and the hospital, as well as Ora McFarlin. The court of appeals ruled that all of the defendants were immune from suit and dismissed the case." ObiBinks 04:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Harris v. Harvey

Might it make sense to add a brief section on Harris v. Harvey, 605 F.2d 330 (7th Cir. 1979) DOCKET No. 78-2057? That case cited Stump v. Sparkmen but ruled that 'acts perpetrated outside of Judge Harvey's courtroom and not then a part of his judicial functions were undertaken in the "absence of all jurisdiction."' For those acts, a jury awarded Harris $260,000 and the trial Judge added $7,500 plaintiff's attorneys' fees.

This case was decided Aug. 20, 1979 by the United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

QUESTION: Is there a way to find out if Harris v. Harvey was appealed to the Supreme Court? I thought I had heard that it was, but the Supreme Court refused to hear it.

The above cited ruling in Harris v. Harvey says, "As Changed on Denial of Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Nov. 1, 1979." What does this mean? From the Wikipedia article En banc, I gather this refers to a petition by defendants to the same court, which was denied. So maybe it was not appealed to the Supreme Court?

Secondly, what can we say about the precedential value of Harris v. Harvey? That it's precedential within the Seventh Circuit and advisory in the rest of the US? DavidMCEddy (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Harris v. Harvey, 605 F.2d 330 (7th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 938 (1980). Prior to the Seventh Circuit's opinion, there were three district court opinions, 419 F. Supp. 30 (E.D. Wis. 1976); 436 F. Supp. 143 (E.D. Wis. 1977); and 453 F. Supp. 886 (E.D. Wis. 1978). The original appellate opinion was edited by the panel when Harvey's motion for rehearing and motion for rehearing en banc were denied by the Seventh Circuit. This is not uncommon. The motion for rehearing is a request for the three-judge panel to reconsider the case. The motion for rehearing en banc is a request for all of the judges in the circuit to rehear the case.

The briefs are not available via either Lexis or Westlaw, at any level.

The SCOTUS opinion is a typical denial and reads "Motion of Voluntary Association of Trial Judges of Wisconsin for leave to file a brief, as amicus curiae, granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied." Those two sentences constitute the entire opinion.

605 F.2d 330 is binding authority in the Seventh Circuit, but is persuasive authority in the other circuits. As of today, it shows to have been cited 71 times by various federal courts. Of those, it has been distinguished 4 times and criticized once. GregJackP Boomer! 02:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

My very learned GregJackP: Thank you for your reply. It far exceeded what I had hoped for when I posted the question. I now have the following questions:

1. Might it be appropriate in your judgment to mention Harris v. Harvey (or some other related case) in this article on Stump v. Sparkman? I got into this, because I heard Syl Harris talk about his case. He claimed there might be more justice in criminal justice if his case were more widely known. I offered to help increase the visibility of his case via Wikipedia if it seemed warranted. In the spirit of, "Being bold but not reckless", I thought of adding a short section on it to the article on Stump v. Sparkman. However, I'm not an attorney. As such, I'm confident that some of what I might write could be inaccurate.
2. If I were to add a section on Harris v. Harvey to the Stump v. Sparkman, might I be able to interest you (or some other knowledgeable person) in reviewing what I write and fixing any misstatements or rewording it to make it easier to read for both a lay audience and legal professionals?
3. How can footnotes be constructed to back up what you said about it being cited 72 times, distinguished 4 and criticized once? From my lay perspective, that seems hugely relevant. (I'd also like to know how to find such info. However, that's probably a topic for a different discussion.)

Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 02:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. First, I'm not a lawyer, so this is just another layman's opinion (although I have mainly edited in WP:LAW and WP:SCOTUS). Second, Harris is an outlier as far as cases on judicial immunity go. Almost all suits on judicial acts fail because they almost always involve judicial acts. That said, instead of adding a section to this case, why not create an article on the Harris case itself? It's not that hard, just use this case as an outline or example and write the article.

Are there other Wikipedia articles on appellate court decisions below the Supreme Court? I know that articles have been deleted from Wikipedia, because they were not "noteworthy". I thought that mentioning the case in the Wikipedia article on Stump v. Sparkman would support the claim that Harris v. Harvey was noteworthy while also improving the depth of understanding one could get from the Stump v. Sparkman article. DavidMCEddy (talk) 04:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

After you write the article, tag the article with {{Expert-subject|Law|documentation|talk=Section title goes here|reason=reason goes here|date=Month Year}}, and post a note on the WP:LAW talk page. That will normally get an editor with experience to come and look at it. The main thing is to just use as many good secondary sources as you can find.

Yes. Harris claims he has at many newspaper clippings on his case. (I forget how many. If my memory is correct, the number was over 100.) Writing a separate article on that case would require getting some of those articles, reading them, and telling the story npov with appropriate citations. DavidMCEddy (talk) 04:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

On the footnote, I just use a "cite web" template and indicate that it's behind a paywall. Of course, you have to get someone with access to do the actual search. If you do decide to do that, let me know and I'll get you the URL and other information for the ref. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 03:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Tomorrow or the next day ;-) DavidMCEddy (talk) 04:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

See List of United States courts of appeals cases. Not as many as for SCOTUS, but there are still a number of cases that showed sufficient notability. I wouldn't put Harris in the Stump article myself since it doesn't really follow Stump but is distinguished from it. GregJackP Boomer! 05:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

May I request clarification on why you think Harris v. Harvey should NOT be mentioned in the article on Stump v. Sparkman? I think people reading about Stump v. Sparkman would want to know the main points we've discussed: (1) Most suits against judges fail, because they involve immunized courtroom behavior. (2) Harris v. Harvey is fairly unique in that the judge was denied immunity. (3) Judge Harvey was denied immunity, because the behavior in question was determined to be "beyond his jurisdiction".

I think the reader would want to know exactly the behavior that was deemed "beyond his jurisdiction". I see four possible candidates: (a) He encouraged a convicted felon to file an official complaint of police brutality. (b) He pressured the Racine Chief of Police and perhaps others to fire Harris. (c) He gave interviews to the press about this case. (d) He made blatantly racist remarks. I need to reread the decision, but I think the press interviews were the primary things that were considered "beyond his jurisdiction". I think he probably would have had immunity for racist remarks made in court or in chambers, encouraging a defendant to file a complaint of police brutality or encouraging the dismissal of a police officer. (If I'm not mistaken, members of the US House and Senate have similar immunity: They can slander some individual or group all they want on the floor of the House or Senate without fear of being sued. However, if they say or write the same thing in another public setting, they can be sued for libel or slander.) Agreed?

Thanks for taking the time to discuss this with me. DavidMCEddy (talk) 11:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see why Harris would need to be mentioned here when we have an article on Judicial immunity. That is the best place for it. bd2412 T 17:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks for mentioning the article on judicial immunity. (I should have looked for that earlier but didn't.) That article did not even cite Stump v. Sparkman. Now it cites both Stump v. Sparkman and Harris v. Harvey. Thanks again. DavidMCEddy (talk) 19:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)