Search for: "State v. Bivens" Results 101 - 120 of 528
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
30 Jun 2008, 10:30 pm
The decision discussed here examines the scope of the Court’s 1971 decision in Bivens v. [read post]
23 Dec 2015, 6:22 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
That 2-1 ruling is now the subject of a debate at the Court of Appeals, which has decided not to hear the case en banc.The case is Turkmen v. [read post]
10 Feb 2017, 7:56 am by The Federalist Society
The questions now before the Supreme Court are threefold: (1) whether the Second Circuit, in finding that Plaintiffs’ due process claims did not arise in a “new context” for purposes of implying a remedy under Bivens v. [read post]
16 Oct 2009, 11:50 am
In Part I, I survey relevant aspects of the law of § 1983 and Bivens. [read post]
2 Nov 2009, 10:01 am
In the 7-4 decision, the Court of Appeals cites executive authority and national security concerns in declining to extend Bivens liability in this context.The case is Arar v. [read post]
5 Jan 2017, 2:09 pm by Jonathan Hafetz
The teenager’s family brought a damages suit against the agent under Bivens v. [read post]
31 May 2019, 8:25 am by Evan Schleicher
Regarding the Fifth Amendment, the Court stated that Mesa was entitled to qualified immunity from concerns over excessive use of force under the Bivens question. [read post]
31 May 2019, 8:25 am by Evan Schleicher
Regarding the Fifth Amendment, the Court stated that Mesa was entitled to qualified immunity from concerns over excessive use of force under the Bivens question. [read post]
22 Jul 2014, 6:44 am by Joy Waltemath
” Pointing to the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v Stanley, the appellate panel explained that no Bivens remedy is available for injuries that “arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to service. [read post]
3 Aug 2011, 5:07 pm by Dwight Sullivan
Judge Hayes of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California today issued this ruling on the dispositive motions in Martin v. [read post]