Law Commons^™

Qualified Immunity For “Private” § 1983 Defendants After Filarsky V. Delia, Andrew W. Weis

Georgia State University Law Review

In 2012, the Supreme Court addressed private party qualified immunity in the case of Filarsky v. Delia. There, the Court found that both the historical and policy bases for immunity under § 1983 supported extending qualified immunity to outside counsel retained by a municipality. The Court noted that full-time government employees can always seek qualified immunity, so not extending it to individuals employed on some other basis would create “significant line-drawing problems . . . [which could] deprive state actors of the ability to ‘reasonably anticipate when their conduct may give rise to liability . . . .’”

This …

European Legal Development: The Case Of Tort: Comparative Studies In The Development Of The Law Of Tort In Europe, Vol 9, Anthony Sebok

Articles

This review addresses volumes 7-9 of the series Comparative Studies in the Development of the Law of Torts in Europe, edited by John Bell and David Ibbetson and published by Cambridge University Press.

What Is An Accident?, Daniel B. Yeager

Daniel B. Yeager

Please consider for publication my attached 5000-word, 28-page, lightly annotated (39 footnotes) Essay, entitled “What Is an Accident?”

Here I attempt to decode the most frequently proferred excuse in and out of law. Surprisingly, as central as accidents are to questions of responsibility, their criteria have received almost no attention at all. From what I can tell, mine is the first sustained attempt to identify the grammar of accidents, an endeavor that follows up on similar efforts to do the same with the excuse of mistake in my book J.L. Austin and the Law: Exculpation and the Explication of Responsibility …

The Costs Of Changing Our Minds, Nita A. Farahany

Faculty Scholarship

This isn’t quite a draft yet – it’s a concept paper. You’ll see after the first 10 pages a good bit of text in brackets, which are primarily notes for me, but it’ll give you a sense of the content of those sections. I’d like to talk through the concept – the “duty” to mitigate emotional distress damages and how courts have struggled with it, as a foray into a broader dichotomy that I see in a number of areas of law that suggest an implicit value in “cognitive liberty.” This is a smaller version of a broader book project …