Handbook of Section 1983 Litigation, 2008 Edition

Media:

Price Per Unit:

$315.00

Internet

Call for Pricing

ISBN:

9780735593169

Page Count:

1,191 pages

Format:

Paperback

More Info: 888-224-7377
Have a Sales Rep Contact Me

If you need the short answer to a Section 1983 question, and you can't afford to waste time running down the wrong research path, turn to the Handbook of Section 1983 Litigation, 2010 Edition. This essential guide is designed as the practitioner's desk book. It provides quick and concise answers to issues that frequently arise in Section 1983 cases, from police misconduct to affirmative actions to gender and race discrimination. It is organized to help you quickly find the specific information you need whether you're counsel for the plaintiff or defendant. You will find a clear, concise statement of the law governing every aspect of a Section 1983 claim, extensive citation to legal authority, every major Supreme Court ruling on Section 1983, as well as key opinions in every circuit, and a detailed overview of case law.

The Handbook of Section 1983 Litigation, 2010 Edition is written by David Lee, a practicing expert with 20 years of litigation experience. He has lectured on civil rights topics before thousands of litigators during his career, and argued four cases before the United States Supreme Court, as well as numerous cases before the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.

This new updated 2010 Edition features coverage of recent important Section 1983 U.S. Supreme Court cases including:

Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee
Baze v. Rees
Crawford v. Marion County Election Board
Pearson v. Callahan
Rothgery v. Gillespie County
Engquist v. Oregon Department of Agriculture
Locke v. Karass
Van de Kamp v. Goldstein

This is the one reference to keep at your fingertips at a hearing, trial, or deposition when dealing with Section 1983 cases.

NetNews

Free Email Newsletter

In Focus

Supreme Court Oral Argument in Materiality Case Notes Deference Due to SEC

Assistant U.S. Solicitor General Pratik Shah contended that the SEC is due significant deference based on its long-standing historical practice of applying the materiality standard and its special expertise with respect to what a reasonable investor would want to know.