stating in' dictum that a retaliatory investigation could be actionable under § 1983 but not analyzing the issue because “[t]he officers [did] not argue[ ] that the amendment [was] inapplicable”
How later courts described this case
- stating in' dictum that a retaliatory investigation could be actionable under § 1983 but not analyzing the issue because “[t]he officers [did] not argue[ ] that the amendment [was] inapplicable”
- reversing district court’s denial of the officer’s motion for directed verdict and finding that [c]onsidering the facts of this case, the unlawfulness of the officers’ actions was not ‘apparent.’ We have been unable to find cases ‘closely analogous’ to these facts.”
- observing that qualified immunity is not limited to summary judgment context, although benefits of immunity lessen as suit progresses to trial, and may be considered at directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding verdict stage
- concluding that defendant prevailed under Mt. Healthy because plaintiff had not established that protected speech was a motivating factor
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled on other grounds by Spiegla v. Hull, 371 F.3d 928 (2004)
See Rakovich v. Wade, 850 F.2d 1180, 1191 (7th Cir.1988) (“More than mere speculation must serve as the basis for finding that [such speech] is the ‘motivating cause.’ If this link is not made a reasonable jury could not find that the [speech] ‘motivated’ the defendant; thus, the defendant should prevail on the motion.”), overruled on other grounds by Spiegla v. Hull, 371 F.3d 928 (7th Cir.2004).
The opinion
CUDAHY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent, adopting Judge Ripple’s fine opinion for the panel in this case, 819 F.2d 1393 (7th Cir.1987). The only close question here, it seems to me, is the matter of qualified immunity. The jury properly determined that this is a case of retaliation for the exercise of first amendment rights. That retaliation of this sort violates the Constitution is hardly an esoteric matter (distinguishing this case from the technical fourth amendment violations addressed in Anderson v. Creighton, — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987)). Hence, I believe the right violated was “clearly established” in a sufficiently particularized way.