|
|
|||||
HOME PRACTICE AREAS ATTORNEYS CAREERS OFFICES |
|||||
|
Click here for a mobile-friendly version of our site.
Please check us out on Facebook
|
MULTI-MEDIA THE KELLYCAST - Your Podcast for Breaking News in Business and the Law. IMPORTANT UPCOMING EVENTS The United States Supreme Court has granted GKCJ’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the matter of Filarsky v. Delia. Mr. Tisdale defended attorney Steve Filarsky in a civil rights case concerning an alleged unconstitutional search during an internal affairs investigation. Filarsky was a private lawyer, but was retained by a municipality to provide labor and employment law services in the public sector. At the District Court level, Mr. Tisdale was granted summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity by Judge Manual Real. Qualified immunity serves to bar suit against public sector actors who inadvertently violate constitutional rights when the conduct constitutes the violation of a right that was not “clearly established”. A three judge panel at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that the violation was indeed of a right that was not clearly established, but that Filarsky was not entitled to the protection of qualified immunity solely on the basis of his status as a “private lawyer” retained by the city and not a city employee. Jon Tisdale and Jennifer Calderon authored the writ petition to the U.S. Supreme Court; an amicus brief in support was also provided on behalf of the League of California Cities. On September 27, 2011, the United States Supreme Court granted the Petition for Writ of Certiorari. Mr. Tisdale will present oral argument to the Supreme Court, probably to be scheduled for the January 2012 sitting. RECENT PUBLICATIONS "A Defense Attorney's Perspective on the Expedited Jury Trial." VERDICT, SEP 2011: 31-32. CV, BV and AV are registered certification marks of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., used in accordance with the Martindale-Hubbell certification procedures, standards and policies. Martindale-Hubbell is the facilitator of a peer review rating process. Ratings reflect the confidential opinions of members of the Bar and the Judiciary. Martindale-Hubbell Ratings fall into two categories - legal ability and general ethical standards. |
||||