Hartman v. Moore
2006 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Hartman v. Moore?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the pleading standard for retaliatory prosecution claims against government officials. After a successful lobbying attempt by the CEO of a manufacturing company against competing devices that the US Postal Service supported, the CEO found himself the target of an investigation by US postal inspectors and a criminal prosecution that was dismissed for lack of evidence. The CEO then filed suit against the inspectors and other government officials for seeking to prosecute him in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights to criticize postal policy. The Court ruled 5-2 that to prove that the prosecution was caused by a retaliatory motive, the plaintiff bringing such a claim must allege and prove that the criminal charges were brought without probable cause.
Hartman v. Moore | |
---|---|
Argued January 10, 2006 Decided April 26, 2006 | |
Full case name | Michael Hartman, Frank Kormann, Pierce McIntosh, Norman Robbins, and Robert Edwards v. William G. Moore, Jr. |
Docket no. | 04-1495 |
Citations | 547 U.S. 250 (more) 125 S. Ct. 2977; 164 L. Ed. 2d 441; 74 U.S.L.W. 4209; 06 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3435; 2006 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4985; 19 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 164; 2006 U.S. LEXIS 3450 |
Case history | |
Prior | Dismissed in part, Moore v. Valder, No. 91-2491 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 21, 1992); case transferred, dismissed in part, Moore v. Hartman, No. 92-2288, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13943 (D.D.C. Sept. 24, 1993); affirmed in part, reversed sub nom. Moore v. Valder, 65 F.3d 189 (D.C. Cir. 1995); cert. denied, 519 U.S. 820 (1996); judgment for defendants in part, No. 92-2288 (D.D.C. Feb. 5, 1998); affirmed in part, reversed sub nom. Moore v. United States, 213 F.3d 705 (D.C. Cir. 2000); cert. denied sub nom. Moore v. Valder, 531 U.S. 978 (2000); motion for reconsideration denied sub nom. Moore v. Hartman, 332 F. Supp. 2d 252 (D.D.C. 2004); affirmed, 388 F.3d 871 (D.C. Cir. 2004); rehearing en banc denied, No. 03-5241, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 1514 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 31, 2005); cert. granted, 125 S. Ct. 2977 (2005) |
Subsequent | Moore's motion to compel testimony granted, 241 F.R.D. 59 (2007) |
Holding | |
A plaintiff in a retaliatory-prosecution action against federal officials must plead and show the absence of probable cause for pressing the underlying criminal charges. D.C. Circuit reversed and remanded. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Souter, joined by Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas |
Dissent | Ginsburg, joined by Breyer |
Roberts and Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. |