Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co.
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
Picking's other rulings were outside Bauers's reconsideration. All 36 flagged citations have been read, and the 12 confirmed treatments are listed below.
36 later cases cite Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co.; 36 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 Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co.?
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
Overruled in Part
-
The Third Circuit, sitting en banc, overruled Picking's rule denying judicial immunity under the Civil Rights Act.
William J. Bauers, Jr. v. Herbert T. Heisel, Jr. · Third Circuit · filed
Because a full consideration of the arguments presented requires a re-examination of the position taken by this court in Picking v. Pennsylvania R. R., 151 F.2d 240 (C.A.3, 1945), the case was submitted to the court en banc. ... There is no question that Picking would be dispositive of the immunity issue presently before us. Consequently, the only portion of that opinion which we reconsider deals with the liability of a judicial officer under the Civil Rights Act of 1871. ... Nevertheless, we are certain that the reasoning employed and construction given R.S. § 1979 by the Supreme Court in Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367, 71 S.Ct. 783, 95 L.Ed. 1019 (1951), is contrary to the position we adopted in Picking and requires us to overrule it.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Declined to Follow
-
The district court rejected Picking's view that the Civil Rights Act displaced judicial immunity.
Morgan v. Sylvester · Southern District of New York · filed
Thus, Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 3 Cir., 151 F.2d 240 and McShane v. Moldovan, 6 Cir., 172 F.2d 1016, hold that the common law immunity of judges from civil suit was overridden by the Civil Rights Act, whereas the more recent case of Francis v. Crafts, 1 Cir., 203 F.2d 809, takes the contrary view. ... However unsettled the law on this subject may have been up to the present, I am persuaded that the Supreme Court ruling in Tenney v. Brandhove, supra, charts a clear course. ... With the doctrine of judicial immunity so firmly imbedded in English and American law, it is pertinent to ask a question parallel to that posed by the Supreme Court in the Tenney case: “Did the Congress by the Civil Rights Act intend to do away with this long-recognized immunity intended to secure an independent judiciary?” Nothing warrants the assumption that to achieve the well-known objectives of the Civil Rights Act the Congress intended any such result.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Eighth Circuit rejected Picking's rule denying immunity to state judicial officers for official acts.
Tate v. Arnold · Eighth Circuit · filed
But courts generally have refused to accept the holding in that case as the correct view of the law. For criticism of the Picking case and for precedents to the effect that the Civil Rights Act did not deprive state judicial officers of immunity for acts performed in their official capacity, see the following decisions: ... We are convinced the decisions holding that the common law rule of judicial immunity has not been abrogated by the enactment of the Civil Rights Act are based on sound considerations of public policy and practical necessity.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The district court held judges immune for judicial acts despite Picking's contrary view.
Oppenheimer v. Stillwell · Southern District of California · filed
In Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 1945, 151 F.2d 240, 250, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals thought that Congress, by the use of the phrase “Every person” in the Civil Rights Act, intended to abrogate the privilege “to the extent indicated by that act and in fact did so.” ... The defendant is not liable in a civil action for acts done by him in the exercise of his judicial functions.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Sixth Circuit reaffirmed its refusal to follow Picking on judicial immunity.
Cuiksa v. City of Mansfield · Sixth Circuit · filed
Appellants rely chiefly upon Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 3 Cir., 151 F.2d 240, and McShane v. Moldovan, 6 Cir., 172 F.2d 1016. It is sufficient to say that these cases were carefully considered by us in Kenney v. Fox, supra, wherein we pointed out that the ruling in the Picking case was prior to the decision of the Supreme Court in Tenney v. Brandhove, supra, was contrary to the great weight of authority and was not being followed by us.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Seventh Circuit rejected Picking's reading of the Civil Rights Act as removing traditional official immunity.
Stift v. Lynch · Seventh Circuit · filed
The views expressed in Picking represent a minority view. The argument there made has been considered and rejected by the First, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Circuits. ... The argument that liability under the Federal Civil Rights Act may apply to "every person" is no longer tenable.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The district court rejected Picking's view that the Civil Rights Acts abolished judicial immunity.
Lynn v. McElroy · Northern District of Alabama · filed
The immunity from liability and damages for judicial acts inherent in the common law, and recognized under the decisions of the Supreme Court of Alabama even in cases of deliberate wrong or corruption,1 was neither destroyed nor abrogated by the Civil Rights Acts.2 ... While there appears to be a contrary decision in the Third Circuit, Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 3 Cir., 151 F.2d 240, this is the minority view, according to this court’s research, and was decided prior to the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Tenney v. Brandhove, supra, as pointed out in Cuik-sa v. City of Mansfield, supra.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The district court held that traditional immunity survived the Civil Rights statutes despite Picking.
Koch v. Zuieback · Southern District of California · filed
Finally, Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 3 Cir., 1945, 151 F.2d 240, notwithstanding, the Civil Rights statutes do not abrogate the traditional principles of immunity.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The district court expressly declined to follow Picking's judicial immunity rule.
Niklaus v. Simmons · District of Nebraska · filed
With the highest respect for the distinguished writer of that opinion, I reject it and decline to follow it. That course is required, first, because the Picking ruling is plainly wrong, and, secondly, because it is squarely in opposition to the overwhelming weight of controlling authority, including the Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The district court rejected Picking's contrary view of prosecutorial immunity.
Scolnick v. Winston · Southern District of New York · filed
The majority of courts hold that the Civil Rights Act did not abrogate the similar immunity of judges and quasi-judicial officers such as prosecuting attorneys. ... Contra, Picking v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 151 F.2d 240, 250-251 (3d Cir. 1945). ... Defendants Lefkowitz and Siegel plainly acted within the scope of their authorities as Attorney General and Assistant Attorney General of New York when they determined not to pursue plaintiffs’ charges.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Criticized
-
The district court called Picking's holding contrary to the great weight of authority.
Kenney v. Fox · Western District of Michigan · filed
The only authority cited by plaintiff Kenney that may be said to support his contentions in the present case is Picking v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 3 Cir., 151 F.2d 240. However, the factual situation presented in the Picking case clearly distinguishes it from the present case in this court. Furthermore, the holding in the Picking case is contrary to the great weight of authority and has been overruled by many subsequent decisions involving the civil rights statutes.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Questioned
-
The Third Circuit expressly left open whether the Supreme Court's later decision in Tenney had overruled Picking.
Paul Ginsburg v. Horace Stern and Patrick N. Bolsinger · Third Circuit · filed
We refrain expressly, however, from any determination as to whether the Picking decision has been overruled by the Supreme Court of the United States by Tenney v. Brandhove, 1951, 341 U.S. 367, 71 S.Ct. 783, 95 L.Ed. 1019.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co. 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