Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Immunity
Both absolute and qualified immunity refer to state and court officials, and members of the public directly involved as witnesses in a hearing. Absolute immunity is immunity from lawsuits, while qualified immunity refers only to an immunity from liability. As such, absolute immunity provides greater shielding than only qualified immunity, while the latter may involve a large amount of time before the immunity can be determined. Absolute immunity for example means that the official is free not only from suit, but also from pretrial matters such as discovery, along with the time and expense that these entail. Absolute immunity does however require a motion to dismiss.
For qualified immunity, the time and expense of litigation are not precluded. Unlike absolute immunity, it is therefore required that a case under qualified immunity may need to proceed to summary judgment and even trial in some cases, in order to establish immunity. Issues taken into account in such a case include the state of mind at the time of the action, whether the action was ministerial or discretionary, and the reasonableness of the action.
Official immunity is more specific than qualified or absolute immunity. This refers to what is known as common law torts, including inflicting emotional distress, defamation of character and invasion of privacy. Federal government officials are protected from prosecution for such crimes by official immunity.
This last issue is extremely controversial, especially after the events on 9/11 and the inception of the Patriot Act (American Civil Liberties Union). Millions have voiced their concern over federal officers who have been granted the right to enter homes and monitor a citizen's communication without advising the citizen in question of such actions. According to many, this is a violation of civil rights. Nevertheless, the federal government remains immune, because their actions are within the law, and they are protected by official immunity.
Reference
American Civil Liberties Union. "USA Patriot Act. http://www.aclu.org/safefree/resources/17343res20031114.html
Fault: An Alternative to the Current Tort-Based System in England and Wales The United Kingdom statistics regarding claims THE NATIONAL HEALTH SYSTEM OBSTACLES TO DUE PROCESS THE CASE FOR REFORM THE REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT THE RISING COST OF LITIGATION LORD WOOLF'S REFORMS MORE COST CONTROLS THE UNITED STATES PAUL'S PULLOUT THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY TORT REFORM IN AMERICA FLEEING PHYSICIANS STATISTICS FOR ERROR, INJURY AND DEATH THE CALL FOR REFORM IN 2003: A FAMILIAR REFRAIN THE UNITED STATES SITUATION, IN SUMMARY NEW ZEALAND CASE STUDIES THE SWEDISH SCHEME COMPARISON: WHICH SYSTEM IS
Employee Privacy Torts Issues relating to employee privacy have been at the forefront of businesses for many years. This has been fuelled by the dynamic workplace which changes constantly and also by employees and employers being more litigation-conscious. Technology has also spurred on employee privacy issues with e-mail and the internet being related to heightened concerns about vulnerability of employers to litigation. Many employers have thus exacerbated their concerns relating to
Corruption Anti-Corruption No one is immune from the power of corruption. Of course there are orders of magnitude and people can be corrupted in little ways that do not seem to matter, but many times the people that are corrupted are the very ones who are supposed to be manning the public trust. The very people citizens hope are the most incorruptible are, unfortunately, the most susceptible. Lord Acton said that "Power
M. Lin's release from MCF has had the effect of rendering his lawsuit moot. In this case, M. Lin was incarcerated at the time the lawsuit was filed, but not at the time it is being decided. Thus, M. Lin's cause of action fails on the issue of mootness. Additionally, of the six members whom were denied visitation privileges, five of them have had sons which whom were formerly
Antigua Guatemala Coffee Antigua Guatemala International (AGI) will be a manufacturer and exporter of Guatemalan coffee to Japan and the global. AGI will use a new system in the food and beverage industry to offer Antigua Guatemala coffee in a time-efficient and convenient way. AGI will provide vendors, retailers, and cafes with the ability to buy freshly brewed Antigua Guatemala coffee. It will be a high quality option to the institutional
This essay provides a brief overview of several of the key factors in conflict of laws, including the areas where choice of law is likely to be at issue. Domicile Domicile is one of the key factors in choice of law. Domicile is not the same as location. Instead, domicile is a legal fiction connecting a person to a location for a specific purpose. Domicile impacts jurisdiction and choice of law.