Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), that senior government officials could not be held liable for the unconstitutional conduct of their subordinates under a theory of respondeat superior. [14] This is an example of the US Supreme Court making an exception to break from the general precedent of respondeat superior.
A retaliatory arrest or retaliatory prosecution occurs when law enforcement or prosecutorial actions are initiated in response to an individual’s exercise of their civil rights, such as freedom of speech or assembly. These actions are considered forms of misconduct, as they aim to punish individuals for engaging in constitutionally protected ...
A corporation’s contractual obligation to redeem shares is not necessarily a liability that reduces a corporation’s value for purposes of the federal estate tax. When calculating the federal estate tax, the value of a decedent’s shares in a closely held corporation must reflect the corporation’s fair market value. Truck Insurance ...
Prosecutors have asked judges to stop using the term to refer to an unintentional error, and to restrict its use to describe a breach of professional ethics. E. Norman Veasey , the chief justice of Delaware Supreme Court , answered one such request in 2003 by noting the term's extensive use in rulings over the past 60 years.
Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court decided that the mere existence of probable cause for an arrest did not bar the plaintiff's First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim, but deferred consideration of the broader question of when it might.
Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the pleading standard for retaliatory prosecution claims against government officials.
The general rule in criminal law is that there is no vicarious liability. This reflects the general principle that crime is composed of both an actus reus (the Latin tag for "guilty act") and a mens rea (the Latin tag for "guilty mind") and that a person should only be convicted if they are directly responsible for causing both elements to occur at the same time (see concurrence).
"Mixed motive" discrimination is a category of discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.. Where the plaintiff has shown intentional discrimination in a mixed motive case, the defendant can still avoid liability for money damages by demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that the same decision would have been made even in the absence of the impermissible ...