Case Citator › Barr v. Matteo

Barr v. Matteo

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

Limited by some courtsin review
36 of 37 flagged citations read · 97.3%
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
360 U.S. 564
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
36 of 37
Citing cases (total)
37
Treatment dates
1975–1976
Limited by some courts · in review
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. Barr v. Matteo has been limited and is still in review: 36 of 37 flagged citations have been read, with the two confirmed limits listed below. Two federal district courts held that its absolute immunity rule did not extend to constitutional claims.
More on how this was screened

Black Lives Matter D.C. v. Trump recounts that the Westfall Act replaced the common-law immunity regime for covered federal employees' state-law torts; it says Congress abrogated Westfall v. Erwin, rather than holding that Barr itself was abrogated. An Arizona court separately chose qualified immunity for state officials under Arizona law. The text of one citing opinion could not be reliably identified, so it remains unread.

The treatments below are confirmed; unread citations could still change the overall status.
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.

37 later cases cite Barr v. Matteo; 37 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading; the progress bar above tracks how many have been read so far. 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 Barr v. Matteo?

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 Delaware federal district court declined to extend Barr's absolute immunity rule to a federal due process damages claim and applied the qualified immunity standard of Wood v. Strickland.

    Chaudoin v. Atkinson · District of Delaware · filed

    It is true that the Supreme Court in Wood did not purport to overrule the Barr case. It well may be that Barr retains its vitality in situations like that involved in Barr where the plaintiff was asserting a traditional common law tort claim (i. e. defamation). We need not decide that question, however, because whatever may be the rule in such cases, the court can find no logical basis for distinguishing the situation before this Court from that before the court in Wood.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The California federal district court confined Barr's absolute immunity rule to common-law tort claims, assigning constitutional and civil-rights claims to a qualified immunity test.

    Sportique Fashions, Inc. v. Sullivan · Northern District of California · filed

    Although there is authority that Scheuer did not overrule Barr, e. g., Chaudoin v. Atkinson, 406 F.Supp. 32, 34 (D.Dela.1975), it now appears to be the law that claims of violations of constitutional or civil rights fall under the “good faith” test of Scheuer, while Barr applies to no more than actions for common-law torts.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Barr v. Matteo 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