Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorAckerman, Caryn J.
dc.date.accessioned2007-12-13T19:41:38Z
dc.date.available2007-12-13T19:41:38Z
dc.date.issued2007
dc.identifier.citation85 Or. L. Rev. 1027 (2006)en
dc.identifier.issn0196-2043
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1794/5373
dc.description36 p.en
dc.description.abstractPart 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.en
dc.format.extent147148 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoen_USen
dc.publisherUniversity of Oregon School of Lawen
dc.subjectPrivileges and immunities
dc.subjectQualified immunity
dc.subjectImmunity (Exemption)
dc.titleOregon 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 Immunityen
dc.title.alternativeFairness or Fiction: Striking a Balance Between the Goals of § 1983 and the Policy Concerns Motivating Qualified Immunityen
dc.typeArticleen


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record