Kinney v. Weaver

4 Citing briefs

  1. Cutler v. Stephen F. Austin State University et al

    RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION for Summary Judgment Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment

    Filed February 14, 2013

    Here, it has long been well-established that public employees cannot be subject to retaliation for an exercise of free speech, and Defendants do not argue otherwise. See, for instance, Kinney, 367 F.3d at 367, and cases cited therein. Instead, Defendants argue that Defendants were being reasonable in relying on their discretion to choose (they say “decide”) which version of disputed facts to credit.

  2. Roehm v. Travis County et al

    RESPONSE to Motion

    Filed September 26, 2012

    See United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259, 270 (1997) (“[G]eneral statements of the law are not inherently incapable of giving fair and clear warning, and in other instances a general constitutional rule already identified in the decisional law may apply with obvious clarity to the specific conduct in question, even though the very action in question has -9- [not] previously been held unlawful.” (cite and quotes omitted; second alteration in original); Kinney, 367 F.3d at 350 (“The law can be clearly established ‘despite notable factual distinctions between the precedents relied on and the cases then before the Court, so long as the prior decisions gave reasonable warning that the conduct then at issue violated constitutional rights.’” (cite and quotes omitted)).

  3. Cook et al v. The City of Dallas et al

    MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed November 21, 2016

    5th Cir. 2008) ....................................... 10 Graham v. Conner, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989) ............................................................................................................... 3 Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982) .................................................................................................... 10 Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982) ........................................................................................................... 3 Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 736 (2002) ................................................................................................................... 11 Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 244, 227 (1991) ................................................................................................................ 14 Ker v. State of Cal., 374 U.S. 23, 33, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 1630 (1963) ................................................................................ 4 Kinney v. Weaver, 367 F.3d 337, 356 (5th Cir. 2004) ................................................................................................. 11 Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994) ....................................................................................... 9 Lynch v. Continental Airlines, Inc., 80 F.Supp.2d 686, 693 (S.D. Tex. 1999) .............................................................. 9 Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986) .......................................... 9 McDonald v. City of Chicago, Ill., 561 US 742, 765, 130 S.Ct. 3020, 3035 ................................................................. 4 Messerschmidt v. Millender, 132 U.S. 1235, 1244 (2012) (citations omitted) ............................................................ 11 Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985) .................................................................................................................... 14 Pearson v. Callahan, 5

  4. Kalmus et al v. Zimmerman et al

    MOTION for Summary Judgment on the Basis of Qualified Immunity

    Filed July 8, 2016

    The central purpose of the “clearly established” inquiry is to determine whether “prior decisions gave reasonable warning that the conduct at issue violates constitutional rights.” Kinney v. Weaver, 367 F.3d 337, 350 (5th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (quoting Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 740, 122 S.Ct. 2508, 153 L.Ed.2d 666 (2002)). “This inquiry . . . must be undertaken in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad general proposition.”