Danny M. Bennett v. Dennis Lee Hendrix

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that it is clearly established “that retaliation against private citizens for exercising their First Amendment rights is actionable.”
• noting that a plaintiff’s allegations that a defendant’s retaliatory acts adversely affected him “is an injury sufficiently adverse to give rise to Article III standing”
• alleging that officers “engaged in a campaign of retaliation,” including active surveillance, roadblocks and false traffic citations
• explaining that retaliatory conduct by the government against non-employees is judged by whether a person of “ordinary firmness” would be deterred from exercising their First Amendment rights, and this type of injury gives rise to Article III standing
• finding that retaliatory USCA11 Case: 22-10319 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 09/13/2023 Page: 28 of 43 2 WILLIAM PRYOR, C.J., Concurring 22-10319 conduct is unconstitutional if it would “likely deter a person of or- dinary firmness from the exercise of First Amendment rights”
• finding that retaliatory USCA11 Case: 22-10319 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 09/13/2023 Page: 28 of 43 2 WILLIAM PRYOR, C.J., Concurring 22-10319 conduct is unconstitutional if it would “likely deter a person of or- dinary firmness from the exercise of First Amendment rights”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).