Appendix D: Main Codebook

This appendix contains definitions for all the fields we hand coded and subsequently predicted with our algorithms. We provided it to all hand coders to use as a guide during the coding process. We have made minor edits for clarity.

Basic Relevance

Relevance: Was qualified immunity raised on appeal in this opinion? Phrased another way, was it clear the court could have ruled on qualified immunity even if it did not? Relevant opinions included those where the court (1) directly discussed qualified immunity as a legal issue; (2) noted qualified immunity as an alternate justification; and (3) noted qualified immunity as moot based on its other rulings in the opinion.

1 – Qualified immunity was raised on appeal in this opinion, either by the defendants or the court itself. As noted above, this included appeals where qualified immunity was before the court but was not ruled upon. (Note: If qualified immunity was granted for a claim in district court, including in the alternative, and then that claim was appealed, we considered the opinion relevant.)
0 – Qualified immunity was not before the court on appeal. Examples include:
- Opinions that were not addressing claims under 42 U.S. Code Sections 1983 or 1985 (which covers conspiracies to violate a person’s civil rights) or claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents (i.e., opinions that had nothing to do with qualified immunity or that raised it solely with respect to state law claims).
- Opinions that were part of Section 1983, 1985, or Bivens lawsuits but where qualified immunity was not raised as a defense.
- Opinions where there was previously an interlocutory appeal of qualified immunity, but the instant appeal related to issues at trial that were not relevant to qualified immunity.
- Opinions where qualified immunity was raised at the district court stage, but qualified immunity was not among the areas being appealed (e.g., the appeal related to a sanction for attorney fees in a case that previously involved qualified immunity).
- Opinions where it was unclear if qualified immunity was being appealed (the default code was “0” unless it was reasonably clear qualified immunity was raised on appeal).
- Opinions in a post-trial appeal that was related to qualified immunity but was not an appeal of qualified immunity itself (e.g., an appeal of jury instructions provided regarding qualified immunity).
- Opinions where qualified immunity was raised but was waived because the defendants failed to adequately brief the issue for the court.

If qualified immunity was not before the court in the opinion (i.e., if relevance was entered as “0”), we did not complete the following sections.

Basic Information

Circuit_court: The circuit court for the appeal.

Circuit_case_no: The circuit court case number for the appeal. We captured this exactly as it appeared in the opinion.

Date: The date the opinion was filed/decided. If only one date was listed in the header of the opinion, we assumed it was the date filed/decided. If the opinion was amended or modified, we used the amended date.

Plaintiffs: The plaintiffs in the opinion.We recorded this exactly as it appeared in theheader of the opinion, with the exception that we removed the trailing words “plaintiff” and “appellant” or “appellee.” (Though we use the plural throughout, there could be only one plaintiff.)

Defendants: The defendants in the opinion. We recorded this exactly as it appeared in theheader of the opinion. (Though we use the plural throughout, there could be only one defendant.)

Judges: The judges who heard the appeal. We recorded this exactly as it appeared in theheader of the opinion, barring cleanup of extraneous text and punctuation.

District_court: The district court where the appeal originated.

District_court_case_no: The case number of the lawsuit in district court. We recorded this as “NP” (not present) if the district court case number did not appear in the opinion.

Procedural Details

Appellants: Which party was appealing the district court’s decision?

P – The plaintiffs were appealing the district court’s decision.
D – The defendants were appealing the district court’s decision.
B – Both parties were appealing the district court’s decision (i.e., there were cross-appellants).

Published: Was the opinion published or unpublished?

1 – The opinion was published.
0 – The opinion was unpublished.

En_banc: Did the opinion involve an en banc hearing?

1 – The opinion involved an en banc hearing.
0 – The opinion did not involve an en banc hearing. This included instances where an en banc hearing was denied. We also used this category if it was not immediately clear whether an en banc hearing occurred.

Interloc: Was the appeal an interlocutory appeal?

1 – The appeal was interlocutory. Unless the opinion indicated otherwise, we considered any immediate appeal of a denial of summary judgment or dismissal to be an interlocutory appeal, even if the phrase “interlocutory appeal” did not explicitly appear.
0 – The appeal was not interlocutory.

Pro_se: Did the lawsuit include pro se plaintiffs?

1 – All plaintiffs were listed as pro se for the appeal (this included attorneys who represented themselves).
0 – No plaintiffs were and, as best we could determine from the instant opinion, had never been pro se at any point in the lawsuit. (We used this option unless it was clear the plaintiffs were pro se at some point in the lawsuit.)
ES (earlier stage) – The plaintiffs were previously (at some point in the lawsuit) listed as pro se but were being represented by an attorney on appeal. Such opinions occasionally listed the plaintiffs as pro se. However, Westlaw editors listed separate attorneys for the plaintiffs, suggesting that the plaintiffs were not pro se for the full duration of the appeal. (Additionally, we used this option if one plaintiff in the appeal represented themselves, but another plaintiff in the appeal was represented by an attorney. This rarely occurred in our data.)

Case_stage: What was the procedural stage of the lawsuit at the time of the appeal? We did not consider motions to alter or amend judgment, motions for reconsideration, motions to amend the complaint, any appellate motions (e.g., motions to dismiss the appeal for a lack of jurisdiction), or any other motions not specified below.

D – Dismissal. This also included motions on the pleadings and failure to state a claim.
SJ – Summary Judgment.
B (stands for both) – Dismissal and Summary Judgment concurrently (some cases featured appeals of both at the same time).
PT (stands for post-trial) – Any opinion where at least some of the claims proceeded to trial and were being appealed.
Other – Anything that did not fit neatly into one of the categories above.

Government Defendant Type

The fields below pertain to the types of government officials sued. A few notes:

We coded only for defendants who were part of the appeal. For example, if a lawsuit previously included both state prison and state law enforcement defendants, but the appeal only included the state prison defendants, then we coded the government defendants solely as “state_prison.”
We did not code official-capacity defendants or government entities such as municipalities, state boards, and so forth.
We included all types of defendants who were part of the appeal, regardless of their connection to qualified immunity. (That being said, it was extremely rare for qualified immunity to be raised for some types of defendants but not others.)
We always considered police defendants such as sheriffs, deputies, detectives, and so forth to be law enforcement officials, regardless of the exact role they were performing when sued (e.g., we still considered a sheriff operating a detention center to be a law enforcement defendant). Similarly, we always considered corrections officers and jailers to be prison officials.
We categorized any state officer working in a law enforcement role (even if they were not police) as a state law enforcement officer, regardless of their agency of employment. (Generally, we considered officials with the power to arrest and/or obtain warrants law enforcement officials.)
We considered probation and parole officers to be law enforcement officials.
We considered officials working in conjunction with a prison system (e.g., a lawyer with the department of corrections, a chaplain within a prison) prison officials.

Gov_level: Were the government officials being sued federal or state/local officials (i.e., was the lawsuit brought under Bivens or Section 1983)?

Fed – The government officials being sued were federal officials.
State – The government officials being sued were state/local government officials.
Both – Both federal and state/local officials were being sued.

State_LEO: Was a state/local law enforcement officer listed as a defendant? (They did not need to be the sole defendant type.) This included sheriffs sued in conjunction with the operation of a jail or police officers assisting in pre-trial detention. However, we did not count corrections officers in prisons or jails as law enforcement.

1 – State/local law enforcement officials were included as defendants.
0 – State/local law enforcement officials were not included as defendants.

Federal_LEO: Was a federal law enforcement official (e.g., FBI agent, Park Service officer, Secret Service agent) listed as a defendant? (They did not need to be the sole defendant type.) Corrections officers in federal prisons were not counted as law enforcement.

1 – Federal law enforcement officials were included as defendants.
0 – Federal law enforcement officials were not included as defendants.

State_prison: Was a state/local prison official (e.g., a warden, corrections officer, jailer) listed as a defendant? (They did not need to be the sole defendant type.) This included corrections officers involved in pretrial detention.

1 – State/local prison officials were included as defendants.
0 – State/local prison officials were not included as defendants.

Federal_prison: Was a federal prison official (e.g., a warden, corrections officer) listed as a defendant? (They did not need to be the sole defendant type.)

1 – Federal prison officials were included as defendants.
0 – Federal prison officials were not included as defendants.

Other_ind_capacity_def: Was a non-law enforcement, non-prison official (e.g., child protective services officials, fire fighters, city government officials, state regulatory board officials, state legislators) listed as a defendant in this opinion? (They did not need to be the sole defendant type.)

1 – Non-law enforcement, non-prison officials were included as defendants.
0 – Non-law enforcement, non-prison officials were not included as defendants.

Task_force: If a defendant was law enforcement, was a state/federal task force involved or did the appeal involve a cross-deputized officer (i.e., a state/local officer designated to act as a federal officer)?

1 – At least one defendant was part of a federal/state task force or was cross-deputized (or both).
0 – A federal/state task force was not involved in this appeal, nor were any officers cross-deputized.

Constitutional Violation Type

The fields below pertain to the types of substantive constitutional violations alleged by the defendants, regardless of the constitutional amendment under which a claim was brought. A few notes:

These fields were not mutually exclusive—that is, a single opinion could have contained multiple claim types below.
Our coding was not exhaustive. That is, we coded only for the categories listed below, even if an appeal contained additional alleged violations (e.g., substantive due process, Second Amendment). And some appeals included none of the violations we coded for.
We included constitutional violations before the court regardless of their connection to qualified immunity. (That being said, it was relatively rare for qualified immunity to be raised for only some claims and not others.)
We coded violations alleged and raised in the appeal, regardless of whether they were proven. We ignored violations that were part of the lawsuit but not raised on appeal. In general, we coded for the specific violations plaintiffs alleged, even if the facts in the opinion suggested other or additional violations. For example, if a claim generally involved personal property that was seized, but the claim was brought solely under the due process clause (alleging the plaintiffs were deprived of a proper procedure), we classified the opinion solely as procedural due process—we did not code for “illegal search” (which covered illegal seizing of personal property), since the specific violation alleged by the plaintiffs related solely to an improper procedure. (An exception to this practice occurred for excessive force violations framed as illegal seizures, as detailed below.)
We had to be reasonably confident to code a type of constitutional violation. We permitted strong educated inferences in the absence of explicit clarity; if substantial uncertainty existed, however, we coded the field as “0.”

First_Amendment: Did the plaintiffs allege violations of their rights to free speech (e.g., retaliation for expressing their First Amendment rights), free association, religious liberty, or any other First Amendment right?

1 – First Amendment violations were alleged in this opinion.
0 – No First Amendment violations were alleged in this opinion.

Religious_liberty: Did the plaintiffs allege violations of their right to freely practicetheir religion?This field is a sub-field of the “First Amendment” field above.(Note: Although Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, or RLUIPA, claims are not technically constitutional claims, we captured them under “religious liberty” if they involved a prisoner’s right to religious freedom.)

1 – Religious liberty violations were alleged in this opinion.
0 – No religious liberty violations were alleged in this opinion.

Excessive_force: Did the plaintiffs allege that the defendants committed a violation related to excessive force? This included cases involving non-traditional defendants such as corrections officers or government administrators. We still categorized excessive force claims framed as unauthorized seizures as “excessive force,” since technically all excessive force claims can be considered unauthorized seizures.

1 – Excessive force violations were alleged in this opinion.
0 – No excessive force violations were alleged in this opinion.

False_arrest: Did the plaintiffs allege that the defendants committed violations related to a false arrest or malicious prosecution? This category also included illegal seizures of a person that did not result in an arrest (e.g., an illegal traffic stop)—with the exception that removals of a child from a guardian’s custody are covered instead by the “parental rights” category.

1 – False arrest or malicious prosecution violations were alleged in this opinion.
0 – No false arrest or malicious prosecution violations were alleged in this opinion.

Illegal_search: Did the plaintiffs allege that the defendants committed violations related to an illegal search? This category also included the alleged illegal seizure of personal property.

1 – Illegal search violations were alleged in this opinion.
0 – No illegal search violations were alleged in this opinion.

Procedural_due_process: Did the plaintiffs allege they were deprived of fair process under the due process requirements of the Constitution? Because a large number of violations could have potentially includedprocedural due process, we only coded this field if either (1) procedural due process was explicitly mentioned as an alleged constitutional violation or (2) due process was explicitly mentioned, and it was clear that the due process violation was procedural in nature.(Note: We considered Brady violations for a failure to disclose exculpatory evidence to be procedural due process violations.)

1 – Procedural due process violations were alleged in this opinion.
0 – No procedural due process violations were alleged in this opinion.

Care_in_custody: Did the alleged violations relate to the (lack of) care provided for the plaintiffs when they were in some form of custody? Deliberate indifference to medical needs in prison, or a failure to protect an inmate from harm by another inmate, fell under this category. These violations must have specifically related to a lack of care or attention, however. Excessive force cases against corrections officers, First Amendment retaliation against prisoners, or cases restricting a prisoner’s religious liberty did not necessarily fall under this category. Additionally, “custody” was not limited to jail or prison and included, for example, temporary detentions by police officers.

1 – Violations relating to care in custody were alleged in this opinion.
0 – No violations relating to care in custody were alleged in this opinion.

Parental_rights: Did the plaintiffs allege that the defendants interfered with their rights as parents? Child custody cases fell under this category, but cases involving direct violations of minors’ rights (e.g., using excessive force on a minor child) did not necessarily implicate parental rights.

1 – Violations of parental rights were alleged in this opinion.
0 – No parental rights violations were alleged in this opinion.

Employment: Were at least some of the alleged violations of constitutional rights in this opinion related to an adverse employment action (e.g., a termination, demotion, salary decrease), a hostile work environment, or unsafe workplace conditions? We did not consider contractors suing a government agency over a contract dispute (e.g., an IT company contracted with a local government suing that government) to be “employment.”

1 – At least some alleged violations in this opinion related to an adverse employment action or a hostile/unsafe work environment.
0 – No alleged violations in this opinion related to an adverse employment action or a hostile/unsafe work environment.

Outcomes

Prevail: Who was the prevailing party in the opinion? (Note: We did not consider attorney fees or damages in determining the prevailing party.)

P – The plaintiffs were the prevailing party.
D – The defendants were the prevailing party.
M – Both the defendants and plaintiffs prevailed in parts of the opinion. (M stands for mixed.)

QI_grant: Was qualified immunity granted to one or more of the defendants in this opinion? We considered an opinion vacating a denial of qualified immunity a qualified immunity grant.

1 – Qualified immunity was granted to at least one defendant in the opinion (even if other defendants had qualified immunity denied). This could have been an express grant, or it could have been a decision that reversed or vacated a qualified immunity denial and remanded the issue back to the district court.
0 – No grants of qualified immunity occurred in the opinion, regardless of reason (e.g., no ruling on qualified immunity, qualified immunity denied, lawsuit thrown out for procedural reasons).

QI_denied: Was qualified immunity denied for one or more defendants in this opinion? We did not consider denials of qualified immunity to municipalities to be denials, as municipalities can never be granted qualified immunity. We did consider an opinion vacating a grant of qualified immunity to be a qualified immunity denial.

1 – At least one defendant had qualified immunity denied in the opinion (even if other defendants had qualified immunity granted). This could have been an express denial, or it could have been a decision that reversed or vacated a qualified immunity grant and remanded the issue back to the district court.
0 – No denials of qualified immunity occurred in opinion, regardless of reason (e.g., no ruling on qualified immunity, qualified immunity granted for all defendants, lawsuit thrown out for procedural reasons).

LJFD: Did the court decline to rule on qualified immunity as it determined it lacked jurisdiction due to a factual dispute?

1 – The court found that for at least one claim, it lacked jurisdiction due to disputed facts (and therefore declined to rule on qualified immunity).
0 – There were no rulings that the court lacked jurisdiction due to disputed facts in this opinion.

Stay Informed

Wait