Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Qualified immunity frequently arises in civil rights cases, [7] particularly in lawsuits arising under 42 USC § 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents (1971). [8] Under 42 USC § 1983, a plaintiff can sue for damages when state officials violate their constitutional rights or other federal rights. The text of 42 USC § 1983 reads as ...
Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), is an opinion given by the United States Supreme Court in which the Court overruled Monroe v. Pape by holding that a local government is a "person" subject to suit under Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code: Civil action for deprivation of rights. [1]
42 U.S.C. ch. 59—National Urban Policy and New Community Development 42 U.S.C. ch. 60 —Comprehensive Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Prevention, Treatment, and Rehabilitation Program 42 U.S.C. ch. 61 — Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies for Federal and Federally Assisted Programs
Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court first introduced the justification for qualified immunity for police officers from being sued for civil rights violations under Section 1983, by arguing that "[a] policeman's lot is not so unhappy that he must choose between being charged with dereliction of duty if he does not arrest when he had ...
The Enforcement Act of 1871 (17 Stat. 13), also known as the Ku Klux Klan Act, Third Enforcement Act, [1] Third Ku Klux Klan Act, [2] Civil Rights Act of 1871, or Force Act of 1871, [3] is an Act of the United States Congress that was intended to combat the paramilitary vigilantism of the Ku Klux Klan. The act made certain acts committed by ...
Nelson then filed a civil rights action against officials three days prior to his scheduled execution, pusuant to 42 USC § 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871. [ 2 ] [ 4 ] Because Nelson's veins were compromised from long-term drug use, Alabama planned to use a "cut-down" procedure to access Nelson's veins, which required making a two-inch ...
It was the most prominent in a series of cases which had increased the scope of 42 USC § 1983 in actions against local governments. [14] The decision left open the issue of unequal provision of services according to wealth and for this reason some commentators doubted its wide applicability. [15] [16] The 1976 Supreme Court case Washington v.
A private attorney general or public interest lawyer is an informal term originating in common law jurisdictions for a private attorney who brings a lawsuit claiming it to be in the public interest, i.e., benefiting the general public and not just the plaintiff, on behalf of a citizen or group of citizens.