Talk:Pierson v. Ray
Appearance
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Erroneous interpretation
[edit]This article has this sentence: "In Congress, Justin Amash (L-MI) introduced the Ending Qualified Immunity Act[6] which criticized the erroneous interpretation of Section 1983 by the Supreme Court in Pierson v Ray and subsequent rulings. It adds the following text to Section 1983."
I personally agree that the 1967 decision was erroneous and I kinda hate QI. But should this sentence have that in there like that? It sounds like the article is taking a position on a complicated legal matter. Novellasyes (talk) 14:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Categories:
- Stub-Class Civil Rights Movement articles
- Unknown-importance Civil Rights Movement articles
- WikiProject Civil Rights Movement articles
- Stub-Class law articles
- Unknown-importance law articles
- WikiProject Law articles
- Stub-Class United States articles
- Unknown-importance United States articles
- Stub-Class United States articles of Unknown-importance
- WikiProject United States articles
- Stub-Class U.S. Supreme Court articles
- Unknown-importance U.S. Supreme Court articles
- WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases articles