Case Citator › Hartman v. Moore

Hartman v. Moore

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Limited by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
547 U.S. 250
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
131 of 131
Citing cases (total)
1,621
Treatment dates
2022
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. Hartman v. Moore is limited among the reviewed cases: all 131 flagged citations have been read, with the 1 confirmed treatment listed below. Egbert v. Boule resolved against the First Amendment Bivens remedy that Hartman had expressly assumed without deciding, holding that no Bivens action exists for First Amendment retaliation.
More on how this was screened

The other reviewed opinions applied Hartman's retaliatory-prosecution causation and probable-cause rules, discussed whether those rules extend to retaliatory arrests, or reported Hartman's displacement of earlier circuit precedent such as Poole, Haynesworth, and Smiddy I. Nearby treatment language concerned those earlier cases, unrelated doctrines, or procedural rulings rather than Hartman.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

1,621 later cases cite Hartman v. Moore; 131 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Hartman v. Moore?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Limited

  • The Supreme Court resolved Hartman's assumed First Amendment Bivens remedy against availability, holding that no Bivens action exists for First Amendment retaliation.

    Egbert v. Boule · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    We also conclude that there is no Bivens cause of action for Boule’s First Amendment retaliation claim. While we have assumed that such a damages action might be available, see, e.g., Hartman v. Moore, 547 U. S. 250, 252 (2006), “[w]e have never held that Bivens extends to First Amendment claims,” Reichle v. Howards, 566 U. S. 658, 663, n. 4 (2012). Because a new context arises when there is a new “constitutional right at issue,” Ziglar, 582 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 16), the Court of Appeals correctly held that Boule’s First Amendment claim presents a new Bivens context. See 998 F. 3d, at 390. Now presented with the question whether to extend Bivens to this context, we hold that there is no Bivens action for First Amendment retaliation.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Hartman v. Moore and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace