Oregon Law Review : Vol. 85 No. 4, p. 1027-1062 : Fairness or Fiction: Striking a Balance Between the Goals of § 1983 and the Policy Concerns Motivating Qualified Immunity
Loading...
Date
2007
Authors
Ackerman, Caryn J.
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
University of Oregon School of Law
Abstract
Part I provides a brief overview of the background of
qualified immunity, including its development and the motivations
behind its creation. Part II examines the narrowest approach
taken by any of the circuits in regard to the relevance of
extracircuit precedent by analyzing a case from the Eleventh Circuit.
Part III examines
another case from the Eleventh Circuit, one that, in contrast to
the previous case, was decided after three significant Supreme
Court cases that forced courts of appeals to make significant
changes to their qualified immunity analyses. Essentially, Parts II and III seek to answer two primary questions: First, does allowing
some circuits to narrowly define relevant precedent that
may clearly establish the law detrimentally affect plaintiffs to the
extent that the Supreme Court should itself articulate a binding
standard with more breadth? And second, even if such a standard
was at one time needed, did the Court’s recent decisions
render such a standard unnecessary? This Comment argues that
a narrow standard creates an unwarranted disadvantage for
plaintiffs such that a uniform standard regarding the relevance of
extracircuit precedent is still vitally necessary. Part IV argues that a standard approach among all circuits requiring
consideration of extracircuit precedent in the absence of
binding intracircuit precedent is crucial to the development of
civil rights jurisprudence.
Description
36 p.
Keywords
Privileges and immunities, Qualified immunity, Immunity (Exemption)
Citation
85 Or. L. Rev. 1027 (2006)