Martin A Schwartz

August 17, 2004 | New York Law Journal

Martin A. Schwartz, a law professor at Touro College - Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center in Huntington, N.Y., writes about a Supreme Court decision that alters the way automobiles searches may be initiated.

By Martin A. Schwartz

10 minute read

December 20, 2004 | New York Law Journal

Martin A. Schwartz, a law professor at Touro College's Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center, writes that governmental decisions involving public employees often involve multilevels of decision makers. A public employee's performance might be initially reviewed by immediate supervisor, who transmits a report to the agency head, who in turn makes a recommendation to the personnel board.

By Martin A. Schwartz

12 minute read

February 16, 2011 | New York Law Journal

In his Public interest Law column, Martin A. Schwartz is a professor at Touro Law Center, analyzes issues related to the admissibility of evidence of: the plaintiff's medical condition; the injuries suffered by the plaintiff; that the plaintiff was a member of a gang; and that the plaintiff was attempting to commit "suicide by cop."

By Martin A. Schwartz

16 minute read

February 15, 2005 | New York Law Journal

Martin A. Schwartz, a law professor at Touro College - Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center, writes that the U.S. Supreme Court recently rendered two important decisions concerning �1983 Fourth Amendment claims: Devenpeck v. Alford and Brosseau v. Haugen.

By Martin A. Schwartz

15 minute read

December 15, 2010 | New York Law Journal

In his Public Interest Law column, Martin A. Schwartz, a law professor at Touro College-Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center, analyzes In re City of New York, which provided important guidance concerning appellate review of district court denials of the law enforcement privilege, the scope of the privilege, and how the privilege should be applied.

By Martin A. Schwartz

10 minute read

April 21, 2009 | New York Law Journal

Martin A. Schwartz, a law professor at Touro College-Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center, reviews a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that gave courts in §1983 cases where qualified immunity is being asserted as a defense discretion to first decide whether the complaint asserts a violation of a federally protected right, or to proceed directly to the qualified immunity issue of whether the defendant violated clearly established federal law. Counsel for the parties may now choose to convince the court as to how it should exercise its discretion over whether to follow the two-step approach, generally favored by plaintiffs, or bypass the first step, which defendants may prefer.

By Martin A. Schwartz

11 minute read

August 03, 2009 | New York Law Journal

Martin A. Schwartz, a law professor at Touro College-Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center, writes: The U.S. Supreme Court recently resolved important issues pertaining to constitutional litigation under §1983 and the Bivens doctrine. In Ashcroft v. Iqbal, the Supreme Court held, 5-4, that the new "plausibility" pleading standard adopted in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly applies to federal court civil complaints filed under §1983 and Bivens and that supervisors may be held liable only for their own constitutional violations. Make no mistake about it. These are no mere technical issues. They play a vital role in federal court constitutional litigation.

By Martin A. Schwartz

15 minute read

July 24, 2007 | New York Law Journal

Martin A. Schwartz, a law professor at Touro College � Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center, writes that the U.S. Supreme Court recently held, 8-1, that a "police officer's attempt to terminate a dangerous high-speed car chase that threatens the lives of innocent bystanders[, by ramming the motorist's car from behind,] does not violate the Fourth Amendment, even when it places the fleeing motorist at risk of serious injury or death."

By Martin A. Schwartz

13 minute read

July 28, 2010 | New York Law Journal

In his Public Interest Law column, Martin A. Schwartz, a law professor at Touro College-Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center, discusses the pertinent Fourth Amendment issues raised by City of Ontario v. Quon, determining which were resolved by the Supreme Court, and which remain open

By Martin A. Schwartz

16 minute read

July 21, 2006 | New York Law Journal

Martin A. Schwartz, a law professor at Touro College's Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center, writes that the U.S. Supreme Court recently held, 5-4, that the First Amendment does not protect a public employee's statements made in the course of carrying out her official responsibilities.

By Martin A. Schwartz

13 minute read