Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Why Constitutional Torts Deserve A Book Of Their Own, Michael Wells, Thomas A. Eaton, Sheldon H. Nahmod
Why Constitutional Torts Deserve A Book Of Their Own, Michael Wells, Thomas A. Eaton, Sheldon H. Nahmod
Scholarly Works
Over thirty years ago, Marshall Shapo coined the term "constitutional tort" to denote a suit brought against an official, charging a constitutional violation and seeking damages. In the years since Shapo's pathbreaking article, the number of such suits has grown exponentially. The suits have generated a host of new substantive and remedial issues, yet conventional casebooks on constitutional law and federal courts give little attention to the area. That Professor Shapiro had four books to include in his review of "Civil Rights" casebooks in the Seattle University Law Review is some indication of a demand for teaching materials currently unmet …
Constitutional Remedies, Section 1983 And The Common Law, Michael L. Wells
Constitutional Remedies, Section 1983 And The Common Law, Michael L. Wells
Scholarly Works
Constitutional tort law marries the substantive rights granted by the Constitution to the remedial mechanism of tort law. The sweeping language of 42 U.S.C. 1983 provides that "[e]very person who, under color of any [state law] subjects, or causes to be subjected, any [person] to the deprivation of any [constitutional rights] shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress." Constitutional tort suits raise, in a new context, many tort-like remedial questions relating to causation, immunity, and damages--and therein lies a problem. The usual source of answers to …
Substantive Due Process And The Scope Of Constitutional Torts, Michael L. Wells, Thomas A. Eaton
Substantive Due Process And The Scope Of Constitutional Torts, Michael L. Wells, Thomas A. Eaton
Scholarly Works
The thesis of this Article is that both the Supreme Court and its critics have failed to identify and confront the central issue presented by these due process constitutional tort cases. That issue is neither procedural fairness nor the choice between state and federal courts. It is deciding whether a government-inflicted injury to life, liberty, or property violates the substantive protections of the due process clauses and thereby warrants a constitutionally derived tort remedy. In Part II of this Article we examine the Supreme Court's decisions in this area, focusing primarily on Parratt v. Taylor. We demonstrate that neither Parratt …