Suppose a state court judge allows a municipal court clerk to issue arrest warrants and to set bonds using the judge’s signature stamp, as well as to set a schedule requiring cash-only bonds regardless of an arrestee’s ability to pay.
Nahmod Law
Nahmod Law, published by Chicago-Kent College of Law, focuses on civil rights and civil liberties litigation, particularly the law surrounding Section 1983 claims. The blog covers topics such as First Amendment issues including the Free Exercise Clause, separation of church and state, and damages actions under Section 1983. It also addresses recent Supreme Court decisions and legal developments related to prison litigation reform, Medicaid Act implications, and other constitutional law matters. The content reflects scholarly analysis and updates on litigation strategies and statutory interpretation in the context of civil rights enforcement.
Latest from Nahmod Law - Page 9
Identifying Officers in Police Excessive Force Cases: Sixth Circuit Rules that Summers v. Tice Does Not Apply
The Issue We know that in both tort law litigation and section 1983 litigation a plaintiff must allege and prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant’s conduct was a but-for cause of the plaintiff’s injury. What happens…
What is the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine and What Does It Have to Do with Section 1983?
The Noerr-Pennington Doctine and Section 1983 Under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, which is informed by the First Amendment’s Petition Clause, “parties who petition the government for governmental action favorable to them cannot be prosecuted under the antitrust laws even though their…
37th Annual Conference on Section 1983: 4/21-23/2021
Registration is now open! 3-day Webinar Series | April 21 – 23, 2021Eligible for 12.5 hours of general CLE credit, including 1.25 hours of ethics Liability arising out of §1983 claims continues to present challenges for courts across the country, and…
Seeking, or Defending Against, Section 1983 Injunctive Relief? Pay Attention to Younger v. Harris
The Basics of Younger v. Harris Younger abstention is among the more important abstention doctrines that are typically applied to federal court section 1983 claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. This doctrine, based on Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37…
What Is “Favorable Termination” Where There Is No Conviction?
The Rule of Heck v. Humphrey: An Existing Conviction Suppose a section 1983 plaintiff has been convicted of a crime and wants to sue law enforcement officers for damages arising out of his arrest, prosecution, imprisonment or conviction. An initial…
Proximate Cause and Recoverable Damages in Section 1983 Cases
Proximate Cause and Section 1983 It is generally agreed that federal common law principles of proximate cause govern section 1983 as a matter of statutory interpretation because they are part of the “background of tort liability.” The Supreme Court weighed…
Right of Access Claims, Cover-Ups and the Seminal Harbury Decision
Christopher v. Harbury, Cover-Ups and Right of Access Claims In Christopher v. Harbury, 122 S. Ct. 2179 (U.S. 2002), the Supreme Court dealt with a denial of access claim brought by the plaintiff widow against federal government officials, alleging that…
DeShaney’s No-Affirmative Duty Rule, Section 1983 and Danger-Creation: Three Recent Decisions
Almost everyone knows by now that in a still-controversial decision, DeShaney v. County of Winnebago, 489 U.S. 189 (1989), the Supreme Court ruled that the due process clause does not create an affirmative substantive due process duty on the part…
My Son Interviews His Father About Section 1983, Constitutional Law and Arguing in the Supreme Court
My talented singer-songwriter son, Daniel Nahmod, recently interviewed me and posted the interview on his website. The interview appears with a separate election-eve patriotic program that you may also want to check out. In the interview, my son asks me…