Sign in or Register
Add Case
    • Explore
      arrow_drop_down
      • Cash Courts vs. Constitutional Courts
      • The Constitution
    • Resources
    • Browse Cases
    • Support
      arrow_drop_down
      • Donate
      • Partner
      • Thank You
    • Contact Us
    Add Case

    Stump v Sparkman THE MUTILATION / STERILIZATION of a 15 year old young girl HAS GIVEN THE “ CASE LAW” not the “LAW” used by JUDGES across the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA to FALSELY BELIEVE THAT JUDGES are “ABOVE THE LAW” and have “ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY”

    • Date
      January 10, 1978
    • City/County
      Washington DC
    • Type of Case
      Civil Rights
    • Case Details
    • New Page 0
    • prev
    • next
    • Get directions
    • Leave a review
    • Bookmark
    • Share
    • Report
    • prev
    • next
    Title

    Stump v Sparkman THE MUTILATION / STERILIZATION of a 15 year old young girl HAS GIVEN THE “ CASE LAW” not the “LAW” used by JUDGES across the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA to FALSELY BELIEVE THAT JUDGES are “ABOVE THE LAW” and have “ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY”

    Date
    January 10, 1978
    State or Country
    Indiana
    County/City:
    Washington DC
    The Court the Case was filed in

    Supreme Court of the United States of America

    Type of Case
    Civil Rights
    Case Number

    Docket No. 76-1750 Burger Court / Citation 435 US 349 (1978) SCOTUS

    Judges

    5–3 DECISION FOR STUMP SCOTUS

    MAJORITY OPINION BY BYRON R. WHITE
    Potter Stewart
    Thurgood Marshall
    William J. Brennan, Jr.
    Byron R. White
    Warren E. Burger
    Harry A. Blackmun
    Lewis F. Powell, Jr. - There is a link to SoundCloud to listen to his dessent -
    William H. Rehnquist
    John Paul Stevens

    Yes. Justice Byron R. White delivered the opinion of the 5-3 majority. The Court held that the law vested the district court judge with the power to entertain and act upon the petition for sterilization, and he is therefore immune from damages liability even if his approval of the petition was in error. The Court held that a judge could only be deprived of immunity when he acted in clear absence of jurisdiction. In this case, the court had general jurisdiction over the petition for sterilization, therefore, Judge Stump’s approval was a judicial act, and he was immunized from liability.

    Justice Potter Stewart wrote a dissent, in which he argued that the scope of judicial immunity was a limited liability for judicial acts. Because approval of a petition for sterilization is not a function normally performed by a judge, it is not a judicial act. In a separate dissent, Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. argued that a judicial officer acted in a manner that precluded all resort to appellate or other judicial remedies and that the judge should not be entitled to immunity.

    Justice William J. Brennan Jr. did not participate in the discussion or decision of the case.

    Case opinions
    Majority White, joined by Burger, Blackmun, Rehnquist, Stevens
    Dissent Stewart, joined by Marshall, Powell
    Dissent Powell
    Brennan took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

    Plaintiff

    Judge Harold D. Stump

    Defendant

    Linda Kay Spitler Sparkman

    Plaintiff Attorney

    George E. Fruechtenicht

    Defendant Attorney

    Richard H. Finley

    Judges Comments

    SoundCloud
    Justice Potter Stewart's Great Dissent - Stump v. Sparkman by ... https://soundcloud.com/californiaopencarry/justice-potter-stewarts-great-dissent-stump-v-sparkman?utm_source=soundcloud&utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=facebook

    Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978), is the leading United States Supreme Court decision on judicial immunity. It involved an Indiana judge who was sued by a young woman who had been sterilized without her knowledge as a minor in accordance with the judge's order. The Supreme Court held that the judge was immune from being sued for issuing the order because it was issued as a judicial function. The case has been called one of the most controversial in recent Supreme Court history.[1

    Comments

    Facts of the case
    In 1971 Ora Spitler McFarlin presented a petition for sterilization of her mildly mentally disabled daughter, Linda Kay Spitler Sparkman, to Judge Harold D. Stump. Judge Stump concluded sterilization was in Sparkman’s best interests due to her mental capabilities and approved the petition. The operation was performed, although Sparkman was unaware of the true nature of the surgery. Two years later, after Sparkman married, she discovered that the sterilization explained her inability to become pregnant. Sparkman sued Judge Stump for violating her right to due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court held that although the approval of the petition by Judge Stump was erroneous, he had jurisdiction to consider the petition and was entitled to judicial immunity. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the judgment and concluded that Judge Stump did not have jurisdiction to approve the petition and that he did not have judicial immunity.

    Question
    Does a district court judge have the power to entertain and act upon the petition for sterilization, which makes him immune from damages liability even if his approval of the petition was in error?

    Social Networks
    • SoundCloud
    Document Links 1 (Scribd et. al)

    https://www.oyez.org/cases/1977/76-1750

    Document Link 2

    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/435/349/

    Document Link 3

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stump_v._Sparkman

    mood_bad
  • No comments yet.
  • Add a comment

    Leave a Reply · Cancel reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    Donate with Paypal
    Go Fund Me
    Follow Us on FacebookFollow Us on TwitterFollow Us on InstagramFollow Us on Blogger

    Judicial Pedia follows The Constitution of the United States of America which  is the Supreme Law of the United States.    The First Amendment:     Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Judicial Pedia gives every American a place to exercise The First Amendment.But, when you post and submit a case you agree to the following:   When this form is submitted.The party giving the written statement declares the facts / information stated are true and confirms this to the best of their knowledge. The party confirms that the information here is both accurate and relevant information has not been omitted.

    Liberty Bell

    The Liberty Bell reads:

    "Proclaim Liberty throughout the land unto all the inhabitants thereof." from Leviticus 25:10.

    Let us continue to "RING" the BELL for Justice.

    • Explore
    • Terms of Use
    • Contact Us

    © Judicial Pedia. All rights reserved.

    person
    Sign in
    personDon't have an account?
    lockForgot password?
    person
    Create an account

    IMPORTANT NOTICE: After registering your account, please check your email and click on the confirmation, then return to the website and log back in with the username and password you received in your email.

    PRIVACY POLICY: Your personal data will be used to support your experience throughout this website, to manage access to your account, and for other purposes described in our privacy policy.

    Already Registered?

    Cart

      • Facebook
      • Twitter
      • WhatsApp
      • Telegram
      • LinkedIn
      • Tumblr
      • VKontakte
      • Mail
      • Copy link