Search for: "Kent Bivens"
Results 1 - 20
of 22
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 May 2021, 2:20 am
Andrew Kent has posted to SSRN Lessons for Bivens and Qualified Immunity Debates from Nineteenth-Century Damages Litigation Against Federal Officers. [read post]
3 Aug 2012, 4:44 am
Andrew Kent of Fordham Law School sent me this comment on my post on the new Al Aulaqi suit some time ago. [read post]
26 May 2021, 6:30 am
Andrew Kent, Fordham University School of Law, has posted Lessons for Bivens and Qualified Immunity Debates from Nineteenth-Century Damages Litigation against Federal Officers, which appears in Notre Dame Law Review 96 (2021): 1755-1788:This Essay was written for a symposium marking the fiftieth anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bivens v. [read post]
25 Jul 2012, 7:56 pm
or the line of Supreme Court cases beginning with, but also authoritatively limiting, Bivens. [read post]
16 Oct 2009, 11:50 am
In Part I, I survey relevant aspects of the law of § 1983 and Bivens. [read post]
5 Jan 2017, 2:09 pm
(See, for example, Andrew Kent’s posts here and here, describing these downsides, as well as Steve Vladeck’s response here). [read post]
28 Dec 2016, 8:48 am
As my friend Andrew Kent notes in his characteristically interesting post on the top-side briefing in Hernández v. [read post]
23 Jun 2017, 4:25 am
At Crime and Consequences, Kent Scheidegger notes that the “theme out of the United States Supreme Court [yesterday was] materiality. [read post]
26 Feb 2020, 3:50 am
” Tuan Samahon wonders at PrawfsBlawg whether “[a]fter Hernandez, … Congress [is] ready yet to codify Bivens. [read post]
24 May 2016, 6:00 am
Chatman, holding by a vote of seven to one that the Supreme Court of Georgia’s decision that the defendant failed to show purposeful race discrimination in the selection of his jury was clearly erroneous, comes from Tony Mauro of Supreme Court Brief (subscription or registration required); commentary comes from Kent Scheidegger at Crime and Consequences, Janell Ross for The Washington Post, Steven Mazie in The Economist, and Garrett Epps in The Atlantic. [read post]
22 Jun 2017, 4:20 am
’” At Crime and Consequences, Kent Scheidegger considers Monday’s decision in Ziglar v. [read post]
28 May 2014, 4:19 am
Commentary on the decision comes from Noah Feldman, who argues at Bloomberg View that, “[o]n closer examination . . . the decision is less satisfying than it appears”; from Kent Scheidegger at Crime and Consequences, who observes that there “is already a movement afoot to remove IQ ceilings from the definition of intellectual disability altogether” and argues that the movement “must not succeed” in the context of eligibility for the death penalty… [read post]
11 Jan 2012, 6:31 am
” Coverage and commentary comes from the Associated Press, Hillary Stemple at JURIST, and Kent Scheidegger of Crime and Consequences. [read post]
1 Jul 2017, 4:30 am
Andrew Kent analyzed the decision. [read post]
26 Jun 2017, 11:52 am
Kent Piacenti for compiling the cases in this post, and the voices in my head for drafting it. ============================================================ New Relists Cyan, Inc. v. [read post]
7 May 2007, 9:54 am
Kent Greenfield, Saving the World with Corporate Law? [read post]
30 Apr 2007, 9:54 am
Kent Greenfield, Saving the World with Corporate Law? [read post]
12 Aug 2021, 8:24 am
Casto’s article Foreign Affairs and the Constitution in the Age of Fighting Sail is cited in the following article: Andrew Kent, Lessons for Bivens and Qualified Immunity Debates from Nineteenth-Century Damages Litigation Against Federal Officers, 96 Notre Dame L. [read post]
27 Jun 2007, 9:41 am
Kent Greenfield, Saving the World with Corporate Law? [read post]
5 Jul 2007, 7:12 am
Kent Greenfield, Saving the World with Corporate Law? [read post]
