The Propriety of Prospective Relief and Attorney\u27s Fees Awards Against State-Court Judges in Federal Civil Rights Actions

During the past thirty years, the United States Supreme Court has refined a system of immunities for governmental officials when those officials are sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of constitutional rights. The kind of immunity granted varies with the kind of governmental function exercised by the official when committing the alleged constitutional violation. Persons exercising legislative functions are absolutely immune from suit either for damages or for prospective (declaratory or injunctive) relief. Those exercising prosecutorial functions are absolutely immune from damages but may be sued for prospective relief. Those exercising executive functions are granted only a conditional, good-faith immunity from damage awards and also may be sued for prospective relief. While it is settled that those persons exercising judicial functions are entitled to absolute immunity from damage actions, the one piece still missing from this jigsaw puzzle of immunities is whether they may be sued for prospective relief. The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether judges acting in their judicial capacity may be sued for declaratory or injunctive relief

Choosing the Appropriate State Statute of Limitations for Section 1983 Claims after Wilson v. Garcia: A Theory Applied to Maryland Law

Forty-two U.S.C. section 1983 provides individuals with a federal cause of action for violations of their constitutional rights by persons acting under color of state law. The statute itself contains no limitations period for the filing of suits and, in keeping with settled federal practice, the lower federal courts have looked to state law to determine the proper limitations period. Because the lower courts adopted various inconsistent approaches to determining the appropriate state limitations period, the Supreme Court, in Wilson v. Garcia, held in 1985 that the federal courts should adopt the state limitations period for personal injury actions. In approximately half of the states, however, there are two limitations periods for personal injury actions: a shorter period for certain named intentional torts and a longer period for the residue of personal injury actions. The lower federal courts have split on the question of which of the two limitations periods should be applied. This article examines the rationale employed by the courts in selecting either the shorter or longer limitations period. The article then presents a theory that supports adoption of the longer, general personal injury limitations period rather than the shorter limitations period applicable to intentional torts. The article concludes with the application of this theory to Maryland statutory law

Overcoming Under-Compensation and Under-Deterrence in Intentional Tort Cases: Are Statutory Multiple Damages the Best Remedy?

This Article advocates that states\u27 statutes make greater and more systematic use of multiple damages by extending them to a much broader range of intentional, wrongful conduct. Part II of this Article will explain why extra-compensatory relief is called for when tortious conduct is intentional or malicious. Part III will compare punitive damages, attorney fees, and treble or other multiple damages as possible sources of additional relief. Part IV will focus on multiple damages. The Article will examine the range of existing state statutes and discuss why and how those statutes might be extended to a broader range of wrongful behavior

The Judiciary in the United States: A Search for Fairness, Independence and Competence

Alexander Hamilton referred to the judiciary as “the least dangerous branch” because it could neither make nor enforce the law without help from the other two branches of government. In the years since then, however, courts and judges in the United States have assumed a much more prominent role in society. American judges preside over criminal trials and sentence those convicted, decide all kinds of civil disputes, both large and small, and make important decisions involving families, such as child custody. They have also become the primary guarantors of the civil and constitutional rights of American citizens. The case of Marbury v. Madison established the principal of judicial review, which gave courts the power to declare acts of the other branches of government unconstitutional. Then, the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment after the Civil War made many of the protections of the Bill of Rights (which was originally directed only at the federal government) applicable to the states. As a consequence, judges are in the position to protect those liberty interests provided by the Constitution from incursions by the state or federal governments. Judges also play a large role in enforcing the numerous modern civil rights statutes providing for equality in employment, housing, public accommodations, and other areas. Protecting the constitutional and civil rights of minorities, of criminal defendants, and of other unpopular groups and causes requires not only wisdom and courage, but also the ability to make difficult and unpopular decisions without fear of being removed from office. The cornerstones of any legal system, and the greatest measure of whether it can provide justice to its citizens, are its judges. The preamble to the American Bar Association (“ABA”) Model Code of Judicial Conduct states: “Our legal system is based on the principle that an independent, fair, and competent judiciary will interpret and apply the laws that govern us.” Fairness generally means that the judges must be unbiased and impartial; independence is the ability to decide cases free from political or other outside pressure; and competence requires that judges be of the highest ability, with proper training and experience. While there may not always be agreement as to the extent that the American judiciary meets these standards, most commentators agree with these aspirational goals. The most important factors that affect the fairness, independence, and competency of judges are: method of selection, term of office, compensation, code of conduct, the disciplinary process, gender and racial bias, and education and training. This Article will explore these factors and examine their effect on the quality of both the federal and state judiciary. A useful starting point should be those provisions in the United States Constitution that were designed to help make federal judges unbiased and independent

The Use and Effectiveness of Various Learning Materials in an Evidence Class

Like many law teachers, I take reasonable care in selecting the outside materials I require my students to use (or recommend to them) in preparing for class and studying for the exam. I base my choice on my own notions of what would be most helpful to them in learning the material, preparing for class, succeeding on the exam, and preparing to be lawyers. I carefully weigh such matters as length of assignment, interest to the students, and active versus passive learning. My assessment, however, is based almost entirely on my own notions of what the students will find most interesting and most beneficial. I will, of course, occasionally discuss course materials with my colleagues over lunch, or even more occasionally get an anecdotal report from a student. But I had never really examined the extent of use and the effectiveness of the materials I had been assigning. The closest I had ever come to doing so was in reviewing the evaluation forms filled out anonymously by all students at the end of the semester. One of the twelve questions on the school\u27s standard form asks students their opinion of “the assigned texts, outside reading and exercises” in the course. I must admit, however, that my greater interest in the other eleven questions, which deal more personally with my performance, and the paucity of information supplied by the students (on most questions and particularly on this one) have conspired to make this exercise less than helpful in evaluating the teaching materials. In the spring of 1994 I decided to conduct a more systematic review of the teaching materials I assigned in my Evidence class. Mainly I wanted to know to what extent the students were completing assignments in each of the materials; why they were or were not completing the assignments; and to what extent, if any, did completing the assignments improve their performance. The results of the study gave me some interesting answers. More important, conducting the study and discovering that very few similar studies have been published in the law school context have convinced me that we law professors need to do more systematic research into student use of the materials we assign and their effectiveness

The Judiciary in the United States: A Search for Fairness, Independence and Competence

Alexander Hamilton referred to the judiciary as “the least dangerous branch” because it could neither make nor enforce the law without help from the other two branches of government. In the years since then, however, courts and judges in the United States have assumed a much more prominent role in society. American judges preside over criminal trials and sentence those convicted, decide all kinds of civil disputes, both large and small, and make important decisions involving families, such as child custody. They have also become the primary guarantors of the civil and constitutional rights of American citizens. The case of Marbury v. Madison established the principal of judicial review, which gave courts the power to declare acts of the other branches of government unconstitutional. Then, the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment after the Civil War made many of the protections of the Bill of Rights (which was originally directed only at the federal government) applicable to the states. As a consequence, judges are in the position to protect those liberty interests provided by the Constitution from incursions by the state or federal governments. Judges also play a large role in enforcing the numerous modern civil rights statutes providing for equality in employment, housing, public accommodations, and other areas. Protecting the constitutional and civil rights of minorities, of criminal defendants, and of other unpopular groups and causes requires not only wisdom and courage, but also the ability to make difficult and unpopular decisions without fear of being removed from office. The cornerstones of any legal system, and the greatest measure of whether it can provide justice to its citizens, are its judges. The preamble to the American Bar Association (“ABA”) Model Code of Judicial Conduct states: “Our legal system is based on the principle that an independent, fair, and competent judiciary will interpret and apply the laws that govern us.” Fairness generally means that the judges must be unbiased and impartial; independence is the ability to decide cases free from political or other outside pressure; and competence requires that judges be of the highest ability, with proper training and experience. While there may not always be agreement as to the extent that the American judiciary meets these standards, most commentators agree with these aspirational goals. The most important factors that affect the fairness, independence, and competency of judges are: method of selection, term of office, compensation, code of conduct, the disciplinary process, gender and racial bias, and education and training. This Article will explore these factors and examine their effect on the quality of both the federal and state judiciary. A useful starting point should be those provisions in the United States Constitution that were designed to help make federal judges unbiased and independent

Public Official\u27s Qualified Immunity in Section 1983 Actions under \u3cem\u3eHarlow v. Fitzgerald\u3c/em\u3e and its Progeny: A Critical Analysis

Part I of this Article discusses the development of immunities in section 1983 actions. Part II examines the application of Harlow and its progeny to a variety of situations. This discussion shows that broadened qualified immunity produces anomalous results under some circumstances by granting immunity to officials who have acted in a clearly culpable manner. Part III discusses the appropriateness of the Harlow standard and determines that it is neither supported by the legislative history of section 1983 nor by legitimate policy concerns. Finally, Part IV proposes several solutions that would protect deserving public officials from personal damage liability without unnecessarily depriving plaintiffs of their right to recover