On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

35th Annual Section 1983 Civil Rights Litigation

Released on: Nov. 1, 2018
Running Time: 06:01:42

The law of Section 1983 is multifaceted, in some respects complex, and continues to develop.  To be an effective Section 1983 litigator, it is necessary to have an in-depth understanding of the various aspects of Section 1983 litigation and to stay abreast of the latest developments.  At PLI’s 35th Annual Section 1983 Civil Rights Litigation program, a highly experienced and accomplished faculty will analyze the most important aspects of the law of Section 1983 as well as recent trends and developments.  The faculty includes federal appellate and district court judges, experienced Section 1983 plaintiff’s and defendant’s practitioners, a law school dean, and authors of texts and articles on the law of Section 1983.  

Lecture Topics [Total time 06:01:42]

Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.

  • Opening Remarks* [00:09:18]
  • Claims Against Law Enforcement Officers: Arrests, Force, Searches and Speech [01:15:07]
    Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, Professor Karen M. Blum, Peter G. Farrell, Hon. Brenda K. Sannes, Martin A. Schwartz, Hon. James A. Wynn, Jr.
  • Qualified Immunity: An In-Depth Analysis [01:07:51]
    Hon. James A. Wynn, Jr., Professor Karen M. Blum, Hon. Brenda K. Sannes, Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, Peter G. Farrell, Professor Alex Reinert, Martin A. Schwartz
  • Supervisory Liability [01:00:46]
    Professor Alex Reinert, Professor Karen M. Blum, Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, Peter G. Farrell, Hon. Brenda K. Sannes, Martin A. Schwartz, Hon. James A. Wynn, Jr.
  • Municipal Liability: Focus on Municipal Custom and Practice – A Discussion [01:16:24]
    Martin A. Schwartz, Professor Karen M. Blum, Frederick K. Brewington, Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, Peter G. Farrell, Professor Leon Friedman, Hon. James A. Wynn, Jr., Professor Alex Reinert
  • Demonstrative Evidence in Actions Against Law Enforcement [01:12:12]
    Zoe Salzman, Peter G. Farrell, Professor Karen M. Blum, Frederick K. Brewington, Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, Genevieve Nelson, Martin A. Schwartz

The purchase price of this Web Program includes the following articles from the Course Handbook available online:

  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • Fundamentals of Section 1983 Litigation (July 2018)
    Martin A. Schwartz
  • Section 1983 Civil Rights Litigation: Supreme Court Developments (July 2018)
    Martin A. Schwartz
  • Supreme Court: October Term 2017 (August 2, 2018)
    Erwin Chemerinsky
  • Supreme Court Decisions: October 2017–18 Term
    Leon Friedman
  • Section 1983: Qualified Immunity (August 1, 2018)—Part I
    Karen M. Blum
  • Section 1983: Qualified Immunity (August 1, 2018)—Part II
    Karen M. Blum
  • Section 1983: Qualified Immunity (August 1, 2018)—Part III
    Karen M. Blum
  • Local Government Liability Under Section 1983 (August 1, 2018)—Part I
    Karen M. Blum
  • Local Government Liability Under Section 1983 (August 1, 2018)—Part II
    Karen M. Blum
  • Demonstrative Evidence in Actions Against Law Enforcement
    Zoe Salzman

Presentation Material

  • Qualified Immunity: Current Landscape
    Professor Karen M. Blum
  • Supervisory Liability After Iqbal
    Professor Alex Reinert
  • Supervisory Liability and Ashcroft v. Iqbal
    Professor Alex Reinert
Chairperson(s)
Martin A. Schwartz ~ Professor Emeritus of Law, Touro Law Center
Speaker(s)
Professor Karen M. Blum ~ Professor Emerita, Suffolk University Law School
Frederick K. Brewington ~ Law Offices of Frederick K. Brewington
Dean Erwin Chemerinsky ~ Dean and Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley School of Law
Peter G. Farrell ~ Deputy Chief, Special Federal Litigation Division, New York City Law Department, Office of the Corporation Counsel
Professor Leon Friedman ~ Joseph Kushner Distinguished Professor of Civil Liberties Law, Hofstra University School of Law
Genevieve Nelson ~ Senior Counsel, Special Federal Litigation Division, New York City Law Department, Office of the Corporation Counsel
Professor Alex Reinert ~ Professor of Law, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
Zoe Salzman ~ Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP
Hon. Brenda K. Sannes ~ United States District Judge, Northern District of New York
Hon. James A. Wynn, Jr. ~ United States Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
General credit information about this format appears below. For credit information specific to this program, please choose your jurisdiction(s) in the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page.

PLI’s live and on-demand webcasts are single-user license products intended for an individual registrant only. Credit will be issued only to the individual registered.


U.S. MCLE States

Alabama:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

Alaska:  All PLI products can fulfill Alaska’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Arizona:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “interactive CLE” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive CLE programs.

Arkansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for Arkansas CLE credit.

California:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “participatory” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via participatory programs.

Colorado:  All PLI products can fulfill Colorado’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Connecticut: Effective January 1, 2017, all PLI products can fulfill Connecticut’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Delaware:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “eCLE” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of eCLE per reporting period, no more than 6 of which may be audio-only.

Florida:  All PLI products can fulfill Florida’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Georgia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “in-house” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 in-house credits per reporting period.

Hawaii:  All PLI products can fulfill Hawaii’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Idaho:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Illinois:  All PLI products can fulfill Illinois' CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Indiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance education” credit. Attorneys are limited to 9 credits of distance education per reporting period. Effective January 1, 2019, the limit of distance education per reporting period will increase from 9 to 18 credits.

Iowa:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “unmoderated” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of unmoderated programs per reporting period.

Kansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “prerecorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of prerecorded programs per reporting period.

Kentucky:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-live” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 non-live credits per reporting period.

Louisiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Maine:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5.5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Minnesota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 on-demand credits per reporting period.

Mississippi:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Missouri:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Montana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Nebraska:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “computer-based learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of computer-based learning per reporting period.

Nevada:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via self-study programs.

New Hampshire:  All PLI products can fulfill New Hampshire’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

New Jersey:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternative verifiable learning formats” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of alternative verifiable learning formats per reporting period.

New Mexico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New York

Experienced Attorneys:  All PLI products can fulfill New York’s CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Newly Admitted Attorneys:  PLI’s transitional on-demand web programs can be used to fulfill the requirements for New York newly admitted attorneys. Only professional practice and law practice management credits may be earned via transitional on-demand web programs. Ethics and skills credits may not be earned via on-demand web programs.

North Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

North Dakota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Ohio:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Oklahoma:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online, on-demand programs per reporting period.

Oregon:  All PLI products can fulfill Oregon’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Pennsylvania:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Puerto Rico:  All PLI products can fulfill Puerto Rico’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “video replay” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 video replay credits per reporting period.

South Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternatively delivered” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of alternatively delivered programs per reporting period.

Tennessee:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Texas:  All PLI products can fulfill Texas’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Utah:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Vermont:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Virgin Islands:  All PLI products can fulfill the Virgin Islands’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “pre-recorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of pre-recorded programs per reporting period.

Washington:  All PLI products can fulfill Washington’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

West Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of online instruction per reporting period.

Wisconsin:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “repeated, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of repeated, on-demand programs per reporting period. No ethics credits can be earned via on-demand web programs.

Wyoming:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.


CPD Jurisdictions

British Columbia (CPD-BC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not eligible for CPD-BC credit unless viewed with at least one other attorney or an articled student. In this case, the credit must be recorded as a “study group.”

Ontario (CPD-ON):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “recorded” credit. If viewed without a colleague, attorneys are limited to 6 credits of recorded programs per year. If viewed with at least one colleague, there is no limit to the number of credits that can be earned via recorded programs.

Quebec (CPD-QC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill Quebec’s CPD requirements.

Hong Kong (CPD-HK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CPD-HK credit.

United Kingdom (CPD-UK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill the United Kingdom’s CPD requirements.

Australia (CPD-AUS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Australia’s CPD requirements. Credit limits for on-demand web programs vary according to jurisdiction. Please refer to your jurisdiction’s CPD information page for specifics.

Alberta (CPD-ALBERTA):  All PLI products can fulfill Alberta’s CPD requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Dubai (CLPD-DUBAI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill CLPD credit requirements.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as the “QAS Self-Study” delivery method. Please check the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page to verify CPE credit availability.

IRS Continuing Education (IRS-CE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill IRS-CE requirements. To request IRS-CE credit, please notify PLI at plicredits@pli.edu of your request and include your Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN).

Certified Fraud Examiner CPE:  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Certified Fraud Examiner CPE requirements. To request CPE credit or find out which programs offer CPE, please contact PLI at plicredits@pli.edu.

IAPP Continuing Privacy Credit (CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Privacy CPE credit requirements.

HR Recertification (HRCI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill HR credit requirements.

SHRM Recertification (SHRM):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as "self-paced" credit. SHRM professionals are limited to 30 credits of self-paced programs per recertification period.

Compliance Certification Board (CCB):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Candidates are limited to 10 self-study credits per 12-month period, and certification holders are limited to 20 self-study credits per 2-year renewal period.

Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists Certification (CAMS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CAMS credit.

New York State Social Worker Continuing Education (SW CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for SW CPE credit.

American Bankers Association Professional Certification (ABA):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill ABA credit requirements.

Certified Financial Planners (CFP):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CFP credit.

 

Related Items

Handbook  Course Handbook Archive

35th Annual Section 1983 Civil Rights Litigation Martin A. Schwartz, Professor Emeritus of Law, Touro Law Center
 
Section 1983 Civil Rights Litigation (34th Annual) Martin A. Schwartz, Touro Law Center
 
Share
Email

  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2018 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2018 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.