THE FACTS ABOUT QUALIFIED IMMUNITY

THE FACTS ABOUT QUALIFIED IMMUNITY

Chen examines the recent decisions addressing the procedures under which lower courts adjudicate qualified immunity claims and demonstrates how they fit into the Court's pattern of structuring qualified immunity doctrine in ways that ignore or deliberately bypass the complexity of factual dispu...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Emory law journal 2006-03, Vol.55 (2), p.229
1. Verfasser: Chen, Alan K
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Civil rights
Judges & magistrates
Judicial immunity
Litigation
Supreme Court decisions
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue 2
container_start_page 229
container_title Emory law journal
container_volume 55
creator Chen, Alan K
description Chen examines the recent decisions addressing the procedures under which lower courts adjudicate qualified immunity claims and demonstrates how they fit into the Court's pattern of structuring qualified immunity doctrine in ways that ignore or deliberately bypass the complexity of factual disputes. He then argues that the Court treats the reasonableness inquiry in qualified immunity claims as a pure legal analysis because of its desires that judges rather than juries, resolve such claims. He contends that the Court assigns decision-making power to judges because it is extremely uncomfortable with the idea that qualified immunity is just that--qualified.
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_215707770</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1037596281</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-proquest_journals_2157077703</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpjYuA0MjQz1jU2MolgYeA0MLA00TUxMDfjYOAqLs4yMDAwsTAz5GRQCvFwVXBzdA4JVnB08g8NUQgMdfTxdPN0dVHw9PUN9fMMieRhYE1LzClO5YXS3AxKbq4hzh66BUX5haWpxSXxWfmlRXlAqXgjQ1NzA3NzcwNjohQBAGTPK0g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>215707770</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>THE FACTS ABOUT QUALIFIED IMMUNITY</title><source>HeinOnline</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Chen, Alan K</creator><creatorcontrib>Chen, Alan K</creatorcontrib><description>Chen examines the recent decisions addressing the procedures under which lower courts adjudicate qualified immunity claims and demonstrates how they fit into the Court's pattern of structuring qualified immunity doctrine in ways that ignore or deliberately bypass the complexity of factual disputes. He then argues that the Court treats the reasonableness inquiry in qualified immunity claims as a pure legal analysis because of its desires that judges rather than juries, resolve such claims. He contends that the Court assigns decision-making power to judges because it is extremely uncomfortable with the idea that qualified immunity is just that--qualified.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0094-4076</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2163-324X</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Atlanta: Emory University, School of Law</publisher><subject>Civil rights ; Judges &amp; magistrates ; Judicial immunity ; Litigation ; Supreme Court decisions</subject><ispartof>Emory law journal, 2006-03, Vol.55 (2), p.229</ispartof><rights>Copyright Emory University, School of Law 2006</rights><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Chen, Alan K</creatorcontrib><title>THE FACTS ABOUT QUALIFIED IMMUNITY</title><title>Emory law journal</title><description>Chen examines the recent decisions addressing the procedures under which lower courts adjudicate qualified immunity claims and demonstrates how they fit into the Court's pattern of structuring qualified immunity doctrine in ways that ignore or deliberately bypass the complexity of factual disputes. He then argues that the Court treats the reasonableness inquiry in qualified immunity claims as a pure legal analysis because of its desires that judges rather than juries, resolve such claims. He contends that the Court assigns decision-making power to judges because it is extremely uncomfortable with the idea that qualified immunity is just that--qualified.</description><subject>Civil rights</subject><subject>Judges &amp; magistrates</subject><subject>Judicial immunity</subject><subject>Litigation</subject><subject>Supreme Court decisions</subject><issn>0094-4076</issn><issn>2163-324X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2006</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNpjYuA0MjQz1jU2MolgYeA0MLA00TUxMDfjYOAqLs4yMDAwsTAz5GRQCvFwVXBzdA4JVnB08g8NUQgMdfTxdPN0dVHw9PUN9fMMieRhYE1LzClO5YXS3AxKbq4hzh66BUX5haWpxSXxWfmlRXlAqXgjQ1NzA3NzcwNjohQBAGTPK0g</recordid><startdate>20060301</startdate><enddate>20060301</enddate><creator>Chen, Alan K</creator><general>Emory University, School of Law</general><scope>3V.</scope><scope>4U-</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20060301</creationdate><title>THE FACTS ABOUT QUALIFIED IMMUNITY</title><author>Chen, Alan K</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-proquest_journals_2157077703</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2006</creationdate><topic>Civil rights</topic><topic>Judges &amp; magistrates</topic><topic>Judicial immunity</topic><topic>Litigation</topic><topic>Supreme Court decisions</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Chen, Alan K</creatorcontrib><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>University Readers</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>Emory law journal</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Chen, Alan K</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>THE FACTS ABOUT QUALIFIED IMMUNITY</atitle><jtitle>Emory law journal</jtitle><date>2006-03-01</date><risdate>2006</risdate><volume>55</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>229</spage><pages>229-</pages><issn>0094-4076</issn><eissn>2163-324X</eissn><abstract>Chen examines the recent decisions addressing the procedures under which lower courts adjudicate qualified immunity claims and demonstrates how they fit into the Court's pattern of structuring qualified immunity doctrine in ways that ignore or deliberately bypass the complexity of factual disputes. He then argues that the Court treats the reasonableness inquiry in qualified immunity claims as a pure legal analysis because of its desires that judges rather than juries, resolve such claims. He contends that the Court assigns decision-making power to judges because it is extremely uncomfortable with the idea that qualified immunity is just that--qualified.</abstract><cop>Atlanta</cop><pub>Emory University, School of Law</pub></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0094-4076
ispartof Emory law journal, 2006-03, Vol.55 (2), p.229
issn 0094-4076
2163-324X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_215707770
source HeinOnline; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Civil rights
Judges & magistrates
Judicial immunity
Litigation
Supreme Court decisions
title THE FACTS ABOUT QUALIFIED IMMUNITY
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-14T15%3A10%3A03IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=THE%20FACTS%20ABOUT%20QUALIFIED%20IMMUNITY&rft.jtitle=Emory%20law%20journal&rft.au=Chen,%20Alan%20K&rft.date=2006-03-01&rft.volume=55&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=229&rft.pages=229-&rft.issn=0094-4076&rft.eissn=2163-324X&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E1037596281%3C/proquest%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=215707770&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true