# William Moore, Jr. v. Michael Hartman

> Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · January 15, 2013 · 704 F.3d 1003

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9501947

## Case

- **Full name:** William G. MOORE, Jr. and Blanche K. Moore, Appellees v. Michael HARTMAN, Et Al., Appellants Antonio Santos, Appellee Pamela Jean Sothan-Robbins, Appellant United States of America, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
- **Decided:** January 15, 2013
- **Citations:** 704 F.3d 1003; 403 U.S. App. D.C. 307; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 911; 2013 WL 150276
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Kavanaugh
- **Judges:** Kavanaugh, Per Curiam, Rogers, Tatel
- **Cited by:** 6 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/9501947

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that "the precedent in this Circuit clearly established in 1988 ... the contours of the First Amendment’ right to be free from retaliatory prosecution”

## Opinion text

KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
In its recent decision in Reichle v. Howards, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 2088 , 182 L.Ed.2d 985 (2012), the Supreme Court indicated that it is not clear whether the absence-of-probable-cause requirement identified in Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 252 , 126 S.Ct. 1695 , 164 L.Ed.2d 441 (2006), is “best read as defining the scope of the First Amendment right or as simply establishing a prerequisite for recovery.” Reichle, 132 S.Ct. at 2096 n. 6. Because the First Amendment law on this point is not clear, the defendants in this case cannot be said to have violated “clearly established” First Amendment law. Therefore, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, and the suit may not proceed. I respectfully dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9501947. Public record. Not legal advice.