# Martha L. Pike Cynthia J. Kincer v. Kermit L. Osborne, Individually and in His Capacity as Sheriff of Wythe County, Virginia

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · July 29, 2002 · 301 F.3d 182

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9495303

## Case

- **Full name:** Martha L. PIKE; Cynthia J. Kincer, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Kermit L. OSBORNE, Individually and in His Capacity as Sheriff of Wythe County, Virginia, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** July 29, 2002
- **Citations:** 301 F.3d 182; 18 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1786; 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 15134; 2002 WL 1733792
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Broadwater
- **Judges:** Niemeyer, Hamilton, Broadwater, Northern, Virginia
- **Cited by:** 19 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9495303

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that the plaintiff’s evidence of the causal connection between speech and retaliation was sufficient even though it was "thin and circumstan- tial"
- concluding that the plaintiffs evidence of the causal connection between speech and retaliation was sufficient even though it was “thin and circumstantial”
- observing that “Jenkins is confusing, at best” when applied to a slightly different context than that at issue in the case

## Opinion text

BROADWATER, District Judge,
concurring in the judgment.
I agree with Judge Niemeyer’s opinion insofar as his opinion concludes that the district court’s judgment should be reversed. However, I agree with the reasoning of Judge Hamilton’s concurring in the judgment opinion, which correctly explains why Sheriff Osborne was entitled to qualified immunity.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9495303. Public record. Not legal advice.