Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Jones v. Preuit & Mauldin

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Decided August 10, 1988No. 86-7415Published

1Concurrence

TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge,

specially concurring:

I

I concur in the result reached by the majority, but I would reach that result by way of a different route. The majority holds that the defendants in this case are immune from damages, and therefore does not reach the merits of the plaintiff’s claim. I would find it unnecessary even to reach the immunity question. In my opinion, the defendants cannot be deemed, under the undisputed facts of this case, to have caused the injury alleged by the plaintiff. Because the crucial element of causation is absent, no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1982) can…

2Cases cited33 opinions

  1. Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
  2. Harlow v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  3. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of NarcoticsSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  4. Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  5. Anderson v. CreightonSupreme Court of the United States · 1987

28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API