In sum, I understand footnote five in Sacramento to hold as follows: A federal court faced with a suit alleging the deprivation of a constitutional right under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 should ordinarily decide whether the constitutional right alleged by the plaintiff actually exists, even where the defense of qualified immunity might provide an alternative ground for decision.
in reference to: FindLaw | Cases and Codes (view on Google Sidewiki)
Attorney of the Year Finalist Ben Diessel on Advising the Murdoch Family
and Getting Big Cases as a New England Firm
-
Attorney of the Year finalist Ben Diessel, a partner at Wiggin and Dana,
said his firm's biggest wins came from people, mentorship and the work done
outsid...
6 minutes ago

No comments:
Post a Comment