Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Constitutional law (3)
- Damages (3)
- Torts (3)
- Section 1983 (2)
- Antecedent state ground (1)
-
- Class actions (1)
- Common law property (1)
- Common law statutes (1)
- Constitutional remedies (1)
- Constitutional rights (1)
- Constitutional torts (1)
- Contingency fees (1)
- Donald Trump (1)
- Due process (1)
- Evidence (1)
- Executive officers (1)
- Exoneration Act (1)
- First Amendment (1)
- Fourteenth Amendment (1)
- Free speech (1)
- Government (1)
- Governmental officials (1)
- Immunity (1)
- Income (1)
- Liberty (1)
- Litigation (1)
- MDL (1)
- Mass torts (1)
- Media (1)
- News (1)
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Suing The President For First Amendment Violations, Sonja R. West
Suing The President For First Amendment Violations, Sonja R. West
Scholarly Works
On any given day, it seems, President Donald Trump can be found attacking, threatening, or punishing the press and other individuals whose speech he dislikes. His actions, moreover, inevitably raise the question: Do any of these individuals or organizations (or any future ones) have a viable claim against the President for violating their First Amendment rights?
One might think that the ability to sue the President for violation of the First Amendment would be relatively settled. The answer, however, is not quite that straightforward. Due to several unique qualities about the First Amendment and the presidency, it is not entirely …
Publicly Funded Objectors, Elizabeth Chamblee Burch
Publicly Funded Objectors, Elizabeth Chamblee Burch
Scholarly Works
On paper, class actions run like clockwork. But practice suggests the need for tune-ups: sometimes judges still approve settlements rife with red flags, and professional objectors may be more concerned with shaking down class counsel than with improving class members’ outcomes. The lack of data on the number of opt-outs, objectors, and claims rates fuels debates on both sides, for little is known about how well or poorly class members actually fare. This reveals a ubiquitous problem — information barriers confront judges, objectors, and even reformers. Rule 23’s answer is to empower objectors. At best, objectors are a partial fix. …
Qualified Immunity And Statutory Interpretation: A Response To William Baude, Hillel Y. Levin, Michael Wells
Qualified Immunity And Statutory Interpretation: A Response To William Baude, Hillel Y. Levin, Michael Wells
Scholarly Works
In his article, Is Qualified Immunity Unlawful?, Professor Baude argues that the doctrine of qualified immunity under section 1983 is unlawful because the doctrine did not exist at the time section 1983 was enacted. We disagree. Section 1983 is a common law statute. Consequently, its meaning and application was not fixed at the time of original passage. In this article, we explain why.
Although we are sympathetic to Professor Baude’s implicit policy-based critique of the doctrine of qualified immunity, we believe his analysis is flawed. The better and more likely way to improve the doctrine is through the common law …
Wrongful Convictions, Constitutional Remedies, And Nelson V. Colorado, Michael Wells
Wrongful Convictions, Constitutional Remedies, And Nelson V. Colorado, Michael Wells
Scholarly Works
This article examines the U.S. Supreme Court’s Nelson v. Colorado opinion, in which the Court addressed the novel issue of remedies for persons wrongly convicted of crimes. Governments routinely deprive criminal defendants of both liberty and property upon conviction, and do so before giving them a chance to appeal their convictions and sentences. When a conviction is overturned, the state typically refunds fines and most other monetary exactions but seldom compensates for the loss of liberty. In Nelson, the Supreme Court addressed an unusual case in which the state did not return the money and that refusal was approved (purportedly …
Qualified Immunity After Ziglar V. Abbasi: The Case For A Categorical Approach, Michael Wells
Qualified Immunity After Ziglar V. Abbasi: The Case For A Categorical Approach, Michael Wells
Scholarly Works
Qualified immunity protects officers from liability for damages unless they have violated clearly established rights, on the ground that it would be unfair and counterproductive to impose liability without notice of wrongdoing. In recent years, however, the Supreme Court has increasingly applied the doctrine to cases in which it serves little or no legitimate purpose. In Ziglar v. Abbasi, for example, the rights were clearly established but the Court held that the officers were immune due to lack of clarity on other issues in the case. Because holdings like Ziglar undermine the vindication of constitutional rights and the deterrence of …
Taxing Litigation: Federal Tax Concerns Of Personal Injury Plaintiffs And Their Lawyers, Gregg Polsky
Taxing Litigation: Federal Tax Concerns Of Personal Injury Plaintiffs And Their Lawyers, Gregg Polsky
Scholarly Works
This Article addresses the federal tax concerns ofpersonal injury plaintiffs and the lawyers who represent them, typically on a contingencyfee basis. It explains when plaintiffs' recoveries are taxable for income and employment tax purposes and whether and how those recoveries are required to be reported by defendants to the IRS. It also discusses whether attorney's fees and costs are deductible by plaintiffs.
In addition to these tax planning and compliance issues, the Article also considers when tax evidence might be admissible. Plaintiffs and defendants often try to introduce tax evidence in an effort to increase or decrease, respectively, the amount …