Eleventh Circuit
Two noteworthy decisions from the Eleventh Circuit yesterday (1/3/03) [UPDATE: web links now added]:
Watts v. Bellsouth excuses an ERISA's claimant's failure to exhaust plan remedies for the denial of a benefit claim, prior to bringing suit, because the summary plan description was ambiguous as to whether such exhaustion was required.
Vaughn v. Cox is the Circuit's first real attempt to figure out what standard to apply to qualified immunity cases, after the Supreme Court, in Hope v. Pelzer struck down the very stringent standard that the Circuit had often applied. The result (over the dissent of Judge Noonan, sitting by designation from the Ninth Circuit) is immunity for a police officer on a Fourth Amendment claim; but there are things in the opinion that can be quoted happily by both plaintiffs and defendants in future cases. In the end, though, this case is just a tiny step towards the re-formulation of the Circuit's understanding of qualified immunity after Hope.
UPDATE: Ed Still points out by email that the Circuit has already wrestled with Hope a bit in Vinyard v. Wilson. Oops: I was wrong. Thanks, Ed.
Two noteworthy decisions from the Eleventh Circuit yesterday (1/3/03) [UPDATE: web links now added]:
Watts v. Bellsouth excuses an ERISA's claimant's failure to exhaust plan remedies for the denial of a benefit claim, prior to bringing suit, because the summary plan description was ambiguous as to whether such exhaustion was required.
Vaughn v. Cox is the Circuit's first real attempt to figure out what standard to apply to qualified immunity cases, after the Supreme Court, in Hope v. Pelzer struck down the very stringent standard that the Circuit had often applied. The result (over the dissent of Judge Noonan, sitting by designation from the Ninth Circuit) is immunity for a police officer on a Fourth Amendment claim; but there are things in the opinion that can be quoted happily by both plaintiffs and defendants in future cases. In the end, though, this case is just a tiny step towards the re-formulation of the Circuit's understanding of qualified immunity after Hope.
UPDATE: Ed Still points out by email that the Circuit has already wrestled with Hope a bit in Vinyard v. Wilson. Oops: I was wrong. Thanks, Ed.
posted by sam at
12:42 PM
