|
|
Antoine v. Byers & Anderson, Inc., 508 U.S. 429 (1993)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Antoine v. Byers & Anderson, Inc., 508 U.S. 429 (1993)
Antoine v. Byers & Anderson, Inc. No. 91-7604 Argued March 30, 1992 Decided June 7, 1993 508 U.S. 429
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Syllabus
Petitioner’s appeal from a federal court bank robbery conviction was delayed four years because respondent court reporter failed to provide a trial transcript. In his civil damages action against respondent and her former employer, also a respondent here, the Federal District Court granted summary judgment in respondents’ favor on the ground that court reporters are entitled to absolute immunity. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Held: A court reporter is not absolutely immune from damages liability for failing to produce a transcript of a federal criminal trial. Respondents bear the burden of establishing the justification for the absolute immunity they claim, which depends on the immunity historically accorded officials like them at common law and the interests behind it, Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 508. Since court reporters were not among the class of person protected by judicial immunity in the 19th century, respondents suggest that common law judges, who made handwritten notes during trials, be treated as their historical counterparts. However, the functions of the two types of notetakers are significantly different, since court reporters are charged by statute with producing a "verbatim" transcript for inclusion in the official record, while common law judges exercise discretion and judgment in deciding exactly what and how much they will write. Moreover, were a common law judge to perform a reporter’s function, she might well be acting in an administrative capacity, for which there is no absolute immunity. Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 229. Because their job requires no discretionary judgment, court reporters are not entitled to immunity as part of the judicial function. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 423, n. 20. Pp. 432-438.
950 F.2d 1471 (CA9 1991), reversed and remanded.
STEVENS, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Antoine v. Byers & Anderson, Inc., 508 U.S. 429 (1993) in 508 U.S. 429 508 U.S. 430. Original Sources, accessed November 22, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=FX8YKCN9RQFRDYY.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Antoine v. Byers & Anderson, Inc., 508 U.S. 429 (1993), in 508 U.S. 429, page 508 U.S. 430. Original Sources. 22 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=FX8YKCN9RQFRDYY.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Antoine v. Byers & Anderson, Inc., 508 U.S. 429 (1993). cited in 1993, 508 U.S. 429, pp.508 U.S. 430. Original Sources, retrieved 22 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=FX8YKCN9RQFRDYY.
|